HB 701 
.L25 
1915a 
Copy 1 



LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 




THE PROPERTY CONCEPTS 

OF THE 
EARLY HEBREWS 



BY 



MARTIN JOHN LAURE 



A dissertation presented to the faculty of the Graduate College of the 

State University of Iowa, in partial fulfillment of the requirements 

for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 

JUNE. 1912 



IN THE SERIES OF RESEARCH BULLETINS OF THE UNIVERSITY 



STUDIES IN SOCIOLOGY 

ECONOMICS, POLITICS 

AND HISTORY 

PROFESSOR ISAAC ALTHAUS LOOS. LL.D.. EDITOR 



THE PROPERTY CONCEPTS OF THE 
EARLY HEBREWS 



BY 



MARTIN JOHN LAURE 



PUBLISHED BY THE UNIVERSITY. IOWA CITY 



THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF ISRAEL'S 
WRITTEN LAW * 



Covenant at Sinai 



MOSES 

Traditions 

Customs 
Precedents 



About 1200 B. C. 



J's Decalogue 
Ex. 34:10-26 



C Code E 's " Judgments ' ■ 

Ex. 21:1-22:17 



E's "Words" 

Ex. 20; 22:18-23:19 



800 B. C. 



Original Deuteronomic eode:I>t. 12-26; 28 700 B. C. 

D Code Later Deuteronomic code: Dt. 4-11; 27 

Supplemental (D 's) additions 621 B. C. 

Josiah's reformation 



Ezekiel's code 
40-43 



Holiness code 
Lev. 17-26 



Priestly teaching 600 B. C. 

Lev. 1-3; 5-7; 11-15; 
Num. 5; 6; 15; 19:14-22 



P Code 



Priestly code proper 
Histories, precedents, and laws 



500 B. C. 



Supplements to the P codes 
Precedents and laws 



Oral or traditional law 



400 B.C. 
Adoption of new 
law book of Moses 

300 B. C. 
Completion of 
canon of law 



Mishna or written version of the oral law 



100 A. D. 



Gemara: 



rPalestinian Talmud 
[ Babylonian Talmud 



400-600 A. D. 



After Kent, The message of Israel's lawgivers, Tabular frontispiece. 



CHAPTER I 
INTRODUCTION 

Curious and interesting is the fact that the translators who 
gave us the English Authorized Version of the Bible did not find 
occasion to use the term "property" in the rendering of any 
word occurring in the Hebrew Scriptures. Scarcely less, signifi- 
cant is it that notwithstanding the flood of critical literature upon 
the Hebrew Scriptures, one looks in vain for a treatise definitely 
dealing with the property notions among this ancient people. 
No article under the heading ' ' Property ' ' is found in any of the 
standard dictionaries or encyclopedias of the Bible. Nor is 
there, so far as the writer has been able to learn, a single work 
upon this subject in any of the modem languages. The enorm- 
ous critical activity expended upon the Old Testament has been 
confined almost entirely within historical and literary lines, 
treating the facts of the Hebrews' social life and economic con- 
ditions more as an incident than as a fundamental factor in the 
development of their great religious system.^ 

Is it, then, that the ideas of property are wholly foreign to 
the Hebrews? The slightest acquaintance with the prophetic 
literature at once prevents such a conclusion. This literature is 
absolutely unique, and in no respect more so than with reference 
to the property notions there set forth.^ Furthermore, it is well 
known that the outstanding historical characteristic of the He- 
brew race, second in importance only to their religious life, is 
their ' ' keen appreciation of property. ' ' ^ 

What is the reason for this dearth of material ? ' ' The Israelites 
possessed no developed theory or system of laws in regard to the 
possession of property. ' ' * This is undoubtedly one of the best 
answers that can be given to the question, especially because it 

1 Popular and Critical Bible Encyclopedia, p. 861. S. v. "Inheritance." 

2 Compare the interest of the Hebrew prophets in "the poor and needy" with the 
sentiments expressed in Plato's Republic and Aristotle's Politics. 

3 McCurdy, History, prophecy, and the monuments. Vol. 2, p. 208. 

4 Kent, The messages of Israel's lawgivers, pp. 152-153. 



4 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 

indicates that "while they continued in the land of Palestine, 
economic and social conditions among the Israelites were ex- 
ceedingly simple. ' ' ^ But if we shift the emphasis from the 
theory itself to its development, we see that it is not the absence 
of property notions that accounts for the lack of interest in this 
field, but the condition of plasticity or flux in which we find 
these concepts. In the inquiry, however, into the genesis of 
property notions, these transitional changes which precede the 
final crystallization of a developed theory, are precisely what the 
student must look for. Therefore, this field ought to yield as 
rich a harvest as any other, presenting as it does the embryonic 
stages in the evolution of the concepts of property. 

Probably the most effective hindrance of a truly scientific in- 
terest in this line of inquiry is to be sought in the overwhelmingly 
theological and ecclesiastical coloring of everything connected 
with the Scriptures, and the strong bias with which investiga- 
tions have been carried on.*' Still, while this has been going on 
and traditional authority has suffered, the inherent scientific 
value and the intrinsic merits of the Hebrew records have been 
revealed.^ This is evident in the recent interest shown in the 
study of Hebrew history in its sociological aspect, where we are 
somewhat more fortunate in regard to available material than 
in the matter of their economy. 

The chief source of information in regard to the property con- 
cepts of the Hebrews is the Hebrew Scriptures. Such monu- 
ments as the Mesha Stone, dealing \\ath Hebrew life in its form- 
ative period, are valuable. Assyriology and Egyptology, in such 
material as the Code of Hammurabi and the Tel-el-Araarna let- 
ters, throw light upon the social life in the ancient civilizations, 
but afford less direct evidence on the actual development of the 
property notions of the early Hebrews, and carry us back to a 

5 Ibid. 

6 It would be difficult to cull a more striking illustration of this fact than this: 
"Christian theology 'with its bible has, for the last three centuries, been the worst 
enemy of science. . . It draws life on with a dose of stupidity not sufficient to kill 
it." Renan, Histor^j of the people of Israel, p. 50. 

7 "The din and smoke of battle have hitherto almost completely concealed the con- 
tent and true significance of the Hebrew Scriptures. Attention has been focussed 
upon questions of date and authorship and the vital messages of the individual laws 
have been overlooked." Kent, op. cit. Preface. So also: "There is more material 
for biblical Sociology than for biblical Theology." Craft, Practical Christian sociology, 
p. 30. 



PROPERTY CONCEPTS OF EARLY HEBREWS 5 

point where it is less easy to establish the exact connection be- 
tween economic concepts and social life. 

In the study of the relation and the interaction between social 
life and property concepts, it is absolutely necessary to accept the 
results of the modern critical study of the Hebrew Scriptures. 
Needless to say, without some hypothesis for use as a critical in- 
strument, to attempt the study of the development of the prop- 
erty concepts in the Hexateuch would be worse than useless. 
With such an instrument, however, the task is not impossible. 
This instrument is afforded by the developmental or documentary 
hypothesis. Based upon the generally accepted results of the 
so-called ''Higher Criticism,'' this hypothesis embodies the re- 
search of centuries. Its validity is therefore assumed in the 
present inquiry.® Accordingly, the familiar sign, J., E., C, D., 
and P., indicative of the different document and codes, are adopt- 
ed. The order of their sequence is best seen in the accompanying 
chronological chart. The period, covered by this study, extends 
only to the D code, which it touches only in so far as it is neces- 
sary to substantiate conclusions not otherwise demonstrable. 

The absence of a fully developed property system among the 
Hebrews has an important bearing upon our study. It necessar- 
ily makes the investigation more fragmentary and elementary, 
but, compensating for this, also more fundamental. There is little 
doubt that the Hebrew notions of property take us as near the 
original source of the property concepts as those of any other peo- 
ple of which we know, and probably a little nearer. The Hebrew 
records and codes are not by any means the most ancient, since we 
have knowledge of codes, such as the "Code of Hammurabi," 
which in all probability antedate the Mosaic code by a thousand 
years.^ But in this very document we have the fact clearly re- 
vealed that the antiquity of a code is no guarantee whatever of 
its primitivity. The Code of Hammurabi is very old in history ; 
it is very recent in the civilizational evolution. The Hebrew 
codes are late in history, compared with the Babylonian codes, 
but they are far more primitive as to their place in the evolu- 
tionary process. In no respect is this more evident than in the 
property concept. With the Hebrews we find it at first ex- 

8 For a brief yet comprehensive summary of this hypothesis see Carpenter and 
Battersby, The Hexateuch, Vol. 1. 

9 Most scholars place this code in the twenty-third century B. C. 



6 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 

pressed only in a custom; in Hammurabi in rigid statute law. 
The social usages whence that law sprang had been crystallized a 
long time before the compilation of this code, and it has no plas- 
ticity w^hatever. The legalistic rigor of the code of Hammurabi 
is as perfect as in the "twelve tables" of Roman law. But this 
is not all. The code of Hammurabi shows an almost absolute 
differentiation from ecclesiastical authority and ceremonial in- 
stitutions. And, most important of all, theocratic ideas, so 
fundamental in the truly primitive codes, have no room at all 
in the pure legalism of this code. The presence of a highly de- 
veloped industrial system is proved by its rigid laws of wages, 
iron laws, indeed, which are as noteworthy as they are conspicu- 
ous in this code.^° 

The few volumes available on the subject of property in its 
genetic aspect deal with it mostly from the standpoint of physical 
and legal fact, rather than from that of its psychic origin and 
development in the social nvilieiL In the interest of such a dis- 
tinction the subject of this article was formulated ; singling out 
the concepts of property, rather than the mere physical reaction 
to economic conditions, which does not necessarily tell us much 
of the accompanying mental attitudes toward this phase of hu- 
man activity. 

The demand is for an elucidation of the property idea, itself in 
early Hebrew society. That this can not be done without actual- 
ity tracing the owning-function as a physical fact is self-evident, 
but our aim is to distinguish, so far as possible, the psychical 
elements involved in the property-practices as they manifest 
themselves in the sources. This has long ago been done with 
reference to the God-idea of the Hebrews. "Why should not the 
property idea found in the same sources deserve as close a study, 
especially since present-day civilization discloses to us the start- 
ling fact that the property-idea tends to a very large extent to 
supplant the real importance of the God-idea in practical life ?^^ 

10 For a detailed study of this subject and the code in full, see Hastings, Dictionary 
of the Bible, Extra Vol., pp. 584-612. 

Ill Compare with this the two-fold division of human society employed by Morgan 
in his Ancient society, the kinship and the territorial ; that is, the bond of blood in 
early society is supplanted by the bond of property in civilization. This is his esti- 
mate of the importance of the property concept: "A critical understanding of the 
IDEA of property would embody in some respects the most remarkable portion of the 
mental history of mankind." P. 6. And W. Robertson Smith has this to say of the 
property idea, viewed from the standpoint of religion: '"We find . . . that as. 



PROPERTY CONCEPTS OF EARLY HEBREWS 7 

If science be justified in tracing the mental content of the religi- 
ous concepts, it is surely its plain duty to try its hand at the 
disentanglement of one of the greatest problems in civilization, 
the property concept. 

Considering the fundamental nature of this subject in actual 
life, it may be well to give a concise definition of this concept. 
That of Professor Giddings is very satisfactory. "The idea of 
possession, which originated in the instinctive assertion of own- 
erhip exhibited. by animals, became in the primitive social mind 
the notion of property, or of property right, which is thus a pro- 
duct of two factors; namely, the assertion of possession on the 
part of the individual possessing, and the tolerance of his claim, 
or acquiescence in it, on the part of the community. ' ' ^- 

The purpose of the first six chapters of this study is to trace 
the development of the property concepts up to the Deuteronomic 
code. The seventh, or concluding chapter, is concerned with a 
correlation of this development with the changes in social life 
which occurred during this time, noting especially the influ- 
ences exerted upon these growing property concepts by changing 
social conditions. That changing economic conditions produced 
changes in social customs, traditions, thought, and institutions 
is not denied, but our chief concern is to show the influence of 
the complex of conditions briefly summarized under the term 
' ' social life ' ' upon the property concepts, the belief of the writer 
being that other social factors, rather than the economic, play 
the predominant part in the production of changed ideas con- 
cerning property. ^'^ This ''intellectual factor" in the institution 
of property, the following study is intended to illuminate. No 
apology is offered for considering the concept the most important 
element in this institution,^'^ notwithstanding the fact that eco- 
nomic conditions furnish the only soil in which a property 
concept could develop, for ' ' an entire science of abstract econom- 

soon as the notion of property ^ets firm footina;, it begins to swallow up all earlier 
formulas for the relation of persons and things." — ReUfjion of the Semites, p. 391. 

12 Principles of sociology, p. 243. 

]h3 In this position the writer is in hearty agreement with Professor Giddings. In 
his criticism of the phrase "subjective utility," defining this as "pleasure attributed 
to an external cause," Giddings says: "Unless this intellectual factor is included, 
the whole theory of utility, which has been constructed with so much labor, falls into 
ruin." 

14 "This, then, is the key to the history of property as an institution — the growth 
of knowledge." Jenks, History of politics, p. 100. 



8 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 

ics cannot be regarded as precedent to sociology as a whole. 
Initial utility is antecedent to association, but association is ante- 
cedent to marginal utility, subjective cost, and subjective 
value. ' ' ^^ Therefore, the tracing of the idea or the concept in 
this institution is of primary importance, for "whether or not 
notions of right and wrong begin to dawn in consciousness before 
any social relations are established, their development is the 
result of association."^*' 



1j5 Giddings, op. cit. pp. 44-45 
16 Ibid. 



CHAPTER II 
THE DIVINE PROPERTY-RiaHT 

The property notions that we meet in the traditional period are 
rather vague and obscure. One element, however, stands out in 
striking relief. This is the conception of Yahweh's property- 
right. It is prominent in the old ' ' Song of Deborah. ' ' ^ Here 
we find it asserted as the right of the victor over the captured. 
But the clear and unequivocal enunciation of this right we meet 
in the Little Book of the Covenant,- the oldest part of the C 
code. ' ' All that openeth the womb is mine '^ . . . . All the 
firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. ' ' ^ 

This seems to be the first element of a definite property-right 
which has grow^n sufficiently articulate in the consciousness of the 
people, to be the fundamental stipulation in the epoch-making 
Covenant between Yahweh and the Hebrew tribes. Therefore, 
when we meet, in the E document, this divine command to Abra- 
ham: ''Take now thy son, thine only son whom thou lovest, 
Isaac, .... and offer him for a burnt-offering, ' "^ it does 
not necessarily prove a universal custom of the sacrifice of the 
firstborn ^ but it does prove the recognized and unquestioned right 
of the deity to the firstborn of men. Hence the divine ownership 
of the firstborn is the most conspicuous element of the property- 
concepts and will serve as our point of departure. 

The development of Yahweh's property-right in the progeny 
of men may be traced from this earliest code. Here the com- 
mand is clearly expressed that the firstborn child belongs to 
Yahweh. It is probable that the story of Jephthah's sacrifice of 

1 Judgr. 5 : 1 ff . 

2 Ex. 34:10-26. 

3 Note the simple mode of expression, "li," composed of the preposition with the 
pronominal suffix, meaning literally "to me." 

4 Ex. 34:19-20. 

5 Gen. 22:2. 

6 This is the view of Letourneau : Property, its origin and development, p. 206. 
"Jehovah himself, .... long exacted the sacrifice of the firstborn men, as well 
as of animals." 



10 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 

his daughter/ the slaying of the firstborn in Egypt,^ and the 
child sacrifice of Ahaz ^ reflect the same conception. That this 
is a conception from a very early period in the history of the 
Hebrews is evident. 

In the last one of the above references, however, this practice 
is mentioned with reprobation. This change in the conception 
is further emphasized by the prophet Micah. ' ' Shall I give my 
firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin 
of my soul ? " ^^ This question reveals two facts plainly. The 
one is the recognition of the old principle ; the other is the em- 
phatic reaction against it. Thus it proves the persistence of the 
practice down to the time of this prophet, and also the active 
agitation, on the part of the religious leaders of the people, 
against it. A little later the prophet Jeremiah speaks of this 
practice in more positive terms: "They have built the tower 
. . . . to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire ; 
which I commanded them not; neither came it into my mind." " 
This is an entirely changed conception of the function of the sac- 
rifice of the fii*stbom. Indeed, the development has proceeded so 
far that the consciousness of the prophets revolts against the 
idea of offering to Yahweh any sacrifice whatever in the old an- 
thropomorphic sense. Therefore, we can say that the develop- 
ment of Yahweh 's property-right in the firstborn, so clearly set 
forth in the early code and in the traditional stories, has almost 
entirely faded out by the time of the pre-Deuteronomic prophets. 

The first distinctly expressed reference to Yahweh 's property- 
right in the captives of war and the devoted, occurs at the begin- 
ning of the conquest of Canaan. In a J document, the command 
is given by Joshua, in the name of Yahweh, to devote (sherem, to 
curse) the entire city and all that it contained to Yehweh, with 
the exception of one family.^- A vivid description of the execu- 
tion of the command is given, and it is concisely stated that 
"they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and 
woman, young and old."^^ In the same connection occurs the 

7,Jiidg. 11:30 ff. 

8 Ex. 11:4 ff. ; 12:29 ff. 

9 2 Ki. 16:3. 

10 Mic. 6:7. 

11 Jer. 7:31; 19:15. For a treatment of the Moleeh worship in general, see Hast- 
ings, Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pp. 415-417. 

12 Josh. 6:17. 

13 Josh. 6:21. 



PROPERTY CONCEPTS OF EARLY HEBREWS 11 

J narrative of Achan's transgression and the punishment sub- 
sequently meted out to him/* which gives unmistakable evidence 
of the deep-rooted conviction of Yahweh's right to the captives 
and the spoil in war. For interfering with this right and violat- 
ing it Achan himself apparently becomes an object of it, and is 
consequently destroyed. 

In the period of the monarchy we meet the same fact. The 
divine command to the king, Saul, is even more explicit than the 
one we noted above. Here, the destruction of man and woman, 
''infant and suckling," is distinctly specified.^^ Saul spares 
King Agag and a great deal of the spoil alive and is therefore 
violently rejected from his kingship by Yahweh. Agag is "hewn 
in pieces before Jehovah," by the hand of Samuel.^'' A less 
drastic but equally significant reflection of this same right is seen 
in Saul's rash vow, which, but for the popularity of Jonathan, 
would have cost the latter his life.^^ Another illustration of this 
divine right is found in the narrative of the death of the seven 
sons of King Saul.^^ The divine oracle places the responsibility 
for a famine upon the sin of the dead Saul, in putting to death 
the Gibeonites, and as an atonement seven of his sons are de- 
manded by the wronged Gibeonites, who "hanged them in the 
mountain before Jehovah." ^^ 

The divine right to the captives in war is fully conceded by 
the early prophets, ^° and in the late P code we find the principle 
formulated into a clearly expressed law : "No one devoted that 
shall be devoted among men, shall be ransomed ; he shall surely 
be put to death." -^ This would seem to indicate that Yahweh's 
right in men, captives, and those devoted increased among the 
Hebrews during our period. We may safely assume, however, 
that the clear line of demarcation between the Hebrews and the 
"nations" is operative in this concept so that the devoted person 
was either actually or fictitiously an alien. This is plainly indi- 
cated by the prophet Isaiah : ' ' For Jehovah hath indignation 
against all the nations, ... he hath delivered them to the 

14 Josh. 7:20-25. 

15 1 Sam. 15:3. 

16 1 Sam. 15:26-33. 

17 1 Sam. 14:24-45. 

18 2 Sam. 21:1-9. 

19 2 Sam. 21:9. 

20 One exception is found in 2 Ki. 6:22. 

21 Lev. 27:29. 



12 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 

slaughter. " -" " For my sword . . . shall come down upon 
Edom, and upon the people of my curse. "-^ Thus the "na- 
tions" are in reality devoted, and the devoted person among the 
natives is one considered as ' ' cut off ' ' from his people and there- 
fore an alien. Besides, the enactment of the P code in this re- 
spect may owe much to the altogether new set of social conditions 
after the exile, in which the Judicial function existed apart from 
the property-right. Thus the difference between the develop- 
ment in the concept of the divine right to the firstborn and to the 
devoted is largely one of nativity and depends upon the growth 
of the national consciousness. The firstborn was always a He- 
brew ; the devoted a gentile. 

The divine right to animals is asserted in the Little Book of 
the Covenant.-* The firstborn of ox, sheep, and ass, and all the 
males of the cattle are specified, with the requirement that the 
firstling of an ass shall be redeemed by a lamb or have its neck 
broken. In the Judgments of E -"'^ the commandment to give the 
firstborn of the ox and the sheep to Yahweh is repeated with the 
additional regulation that it is to be given first on the eighth day 
after birth. In the Words of E -^ this right is referred to in con- 
nection with the sacrifice of the burnt-offerings. This burnt-offer- 
ing, with its implied right of Yahweh to the sacrificial animal, is 
stated in the Noah story of J where Noah takes of every clean 
beast and of every clean fowl, to offer for a burnt-offering ; there- 
by causing Yahweh to smell a sweet savor, and also to abstain 
from cursing the ground in the future on man's account.^^ The 
same idea meets us in the miraculous sanction of the divine prom- 
ise to Abraham,-^ where the patriarch in offering simply obeys 
the divine command regarding the animal ; so, in the story of the 
sacrifice of Isaac,-® he is represented as doing in regard to his son. 

At the opening of the conquest the right to the animals is 
placed in juxtaposition to the right in men. The ox, sheep, and 
ass are enumerated as the animals devoted,^^ and later we have 
the camel mentioned in addition to these.^" 



22 Is. 34:2. 

23 Is. 34:5. 

24 See chart, p. 1. 

25 Ibid. 

26 Gen. 8:20-21. 

27 Gen. 15:9 ff. 

28 Gen. 22:1 ff. 

29 Josh. 6:21. 

30 1 Sam. 15:3. 



PROPERTY CONCEPTS OF EARLY HEBREWS 13 

When, however, we pass to the preexilic prophets, we find the 
conception of the divine right to animals no longer obtaining in 
its old sense. Micah inveighs against this conception in the same 
way as against the proprietary right in the firstborn. "Will 
Jehovah be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousand 
rivers of oil ? " ^^ 

The same conclusion, therefore, is reached in thise case as was 
noted in the right to the firstborn ; namely, that a change had in- 
tervened between the early period and the prophetic age, during 
which the anthropomorphic property-right had faded out. A 
survival of this concept in a changed form is seen in the follow- 
ing : ' ' I will take no bullock out of thy house, nor he-goats out 
of thy folds. For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle 
upon a thousand hills. . . If I were hungry, I would not tell 
thee ; for the world is mine and the fulness thereof. ' ' ^- 

The only reference to Yahweh's ownership of the land in the 
early codes is in the form of a command to let the land lie fallow 
every seventh year.^^ The vineyard and the oliveyard are to be 
treated in the same way. This refers, of course, more to the use 
of the ground than the actual possession of it. Still it is to be 
noted that it refers to soil under cultivation, and in so far differs 
from the early concept of pastoral land to be had for the mere 
occupancy.^* 

Land in the sense of ' ' country ' ' is stated to be the property of 
Yahweh in the early traditions, in which Abraham is represented 
as receiving the promise of the possession of the land of Ca- 
naan.^^ Later it is referred to as an inheritance.^*' That Yahweh 
was not conceived as the possessor of the entire earth at this early 
period is seen from a reference to another deity possessing the 
land but being driven out by Yahweh.^^ But it is land in this 
general sense of territory rather than land as "real property'' 
that forms the conception of landed values in this early period. 

The C code remains practically silent upon this subject, but 
the prophets revive the conception of the divine right in land in 
the most emphatic manner. But it is no longer an immediate 

31 Mic. 6:7. 

32 Ps. 50:9, 10, 12. 

33 Ex. 23:10-11. 

34 Gen. 13:9. 

35 Gen. 12:7. 

36 Gen. 15:8. 

37 Judg. 11:24. 



14 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 

right that they assert. It is rather a sort of feudalistic tenure 
idea of land-ownership under the dispensation of Yahweh, in 
favor of the poor and the needy."* This is the view expressed by 
Isaiah who refers to the nation and the country as the vineyard 
of Yahweh and pronounces a woe upon those who disregard his 
supreme dispensatory right. ^^'^ The prophet Jeremiah speaks in 
the same strain, referring to the land as Yahweh 's ' ' heritage, ' ' 
his "vineyard," and his "pleasant portion. "*° The idea of 
divine ownership has developed into a certain right of control 
such as we find in the P code : ' ' The land shall not be sold in 
perpetuity ; for the land is mine. ' ' *^ The practice of private 
property in land has arisen at the end of our period, sharply con- 
flicting with this more spiritualized conception of the divine right, 
and therefore unsparingly denounced by the prophets. 

Aside from those already mentioned the things and objects in 
general which are specified in the Little Book of the Covenant as 
belonging to Yahweh are "the first of the first-fruits of the 
ground. " *- A more comprehensive property-right in things is 
suggested by the significant sentence: "None shall appear be- 
fore me empty. ' ' « The first-fruits, with the addition of liquors, 
are again mentioned in the Judgments of E, but with the some- 
what broader designation of ' ' first-fruits of thy labors. ' ' " 

Chiefly in connection with the devoted thing is the divine right 
to personal property asserted. The city of Jericho itself and its 
entire contents are devoted.*^ This devotion goes so far as to in- 
clude the man who should attempt to rebuild the city. "With 
the loss of his firstborn shall he lay the foundation thereof, and 
with the loss of his youngest son shall he set up the gates of 
it."**' A similar but less definite right is set forth in the nar- 
rative of Saul's sin, in which reference is made to "the chief of 

38 Cp. McCurdy, op. rit. Vol. 2, pp. 200-202. 

39 Is. 5:1 flf. 

40 Jer. 12:7-10. 

41 Lev. 25:2.^. 

42 Ex. 34:26. 

43 Ex. 34:20. 

44 Ex. 23:16. 

45 If doubt as to the nature of this content should persuade one to exclude personal 
property, one is set right by a detailed description of the objects that caused Achan's 
transgression. A mantle, silver and gold among a variety of the spoil are specific 
objects that leave little room for doubt as to Yahweh's actual right in things. 

46 .Josh. 6:26. 



PROPERTY CONCEPTS OF EARLY HEBREWS 15 

the devoted things, ' ' * ' which should have been ' ' utterly de- 
stroyed. ' ' The right appears to have been absolute. 

Little is said of this right during the monarchy, but the 
prophets, while rejecting the efficacy of ' ' ten thousand rivers of 
oil" as an offering still insist on the property-right of Yahweh 
to the things in their possession. ' ' I will devote their gain unto 
Jehovah, ' ' *^ and ' ' Thy treasures and thy substance will I give 
for a spoil without price. ' ' *^ Yahweh 's right to things, there- 
fore, did not fade out, but assumed the form of a control rather 
than of an actual possession. This development followed closely 
the development of the ideas of the attributes of the deity, from 
the anthropomorphic to the ethical conceptions. 

In the earliest period, as shown in the book of Judges,^" pros- 
perity is defined as success in war. Later it becomes synonymous 
with property, and finally we find the conception of prosperity 
much in the modern sense. Property, in its earliest form among 
the Hebrews, was attributed to Yahweh 's blessing. The Cov- 
enant Code is silent with reference to it, but in close connection 
with the Words of E the following occurs : "He shall bless thy 
bread and water ; and I will take away sickness from the midst 
of thee. There shall none cast her young or be barren ^^ in thy 
land ; the number of thy days, I will fulfill. ' ' The promise af- 
fixed to the fifth commandment is similar.^^ 

The patriarchal stories are full of these ref erences.^^ In these 
passages, cited below, the explicit reference is to property. In 
all these cases the divine favor is the direct source of prosperity. 
Hence we find a great value set upon the parental blessing in 
Yahweh 's name.^^ 

A further development of this notion is seen in the idea enter- 
tained toward the close of our period of a time when it should be 
the good fortune of every Isi-aelite to sit ' ' under his own vine and 

47 1 Sam. 15:21. 

48 Mic. 4:13. 

49 Jer. 15:13. 

50 Judg. 4:23. 

51 This seems to be one of the most important elements of prosperity. Note the 
frequently recurring phrase "Jehovah opened her womb" (Gen. 29:31, 30:2, 23 ff.). 
Especially the an?ry retort to Rachel by her husband: "Am I in God's stead who 
hath withheld from thee the fruit of the womb." Compare with this also the exclama- 
tion of Eve: "I have gotten a man with [the help of] Jehovah" (Gen. 4:1.). 

52 Ex. 23:25-26. 

53 Gen. 12:2; 24:1, 35: 26:12; 27:27; 30:27. 

54 Gen. 27:12, 38. 



16 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 

under his own figtree. " ^^ In this idea the emphasis lies in the 
contrast between the independent possession of the family in- 
heritance and the amassing of large private possessions which 
made the old distribution of the land impossible. These indi- 
vidual fortunes are not considered as having their source in 
Yahweh's blessing. Instead, they are summarily condemned by 
the prophets. They are no longer a token of Yahweh's favor; 
they have become an object of his intense displeasure. 

Amos first gives expression to this changed view. Appearing 
at the seat of the royal sanctuary, probably at Bethel, and speak- 
ing of the confidence which the people have in Yahweh as the 
source of their great prosperity in war and in wealth, he says: 
' ' Woe unto you that desire the day of Jehovah ! Wlieref ore 
would ye have the day of Jehovah? It is darkness and not 
light. ' ' '^^ The reason for this is their luxury ^^ made possible 
by fraudulent praetices.^^ Hosea represents these financiers as 
hurling defiant boasts of their success in the face of Yahweh.^^ 
Yahweh, however, analyzes the case and pronounces sentence : 
"According to their pasture, so were they filled; they were filled, 
and their heart was exalted : therefore have they forgotten me. 
Therefore am I unto them as a lion ; as a leopard will I watch by 
the way; I will meet them as a bear that is bereaved of her 
whelps and will rend the caul of their heart ; and there will I de- 
vour them like a lioness; the wild beast shall tear them.''"" 
Isaiah pronounces a curse upon the wealthy land-owner,^^ and 
Jeremiah hurls the charge of greed in the face of priest as well 
as prophet.*'^ 

Thus we see a development from the idea that Yahweh pros- 
pers Israel in war and then in material possessions to the con- 
ception that Yahweh blesses his people in a political or social way 
rather than in their material possessions. 



55 1 Ki. 4:25; 3 Ki. 18:31; Mic. 4:4. 

56 Am. 5:18. 

57 Am. 6:4-6. 

58 Am. 8:5. 
59Hos. 12:7-8. 

60 Hos. 13:6 8. 

61 Is. 5:8. 

62 Jer. 8:10. 



CHAPTER III 
SLAVERY 

The most prominent institution in the social life of the Hebrews 
was the family, and the fundamental element of the family was 
slavery.^ It is the tap-root of the economic life, and serves as a 
cornerstone for the Hebrew civilization. The two earliest forms 
of property recorded in Hebrew history are animals and men. 
Among the Hebrews these two forms of property existed side by 
side with very little distinction, as the common formula for prop- 
erty shows: ''Flocks and herds, men-servants and maid-ser- 
vants. ' ' ^ 

Keeping this in mind, we can trace the development of slavery 
from its early, mild form in the nomadic and pastoral period, 
through the increasing harshness with the rise of landed prop- 
erty, to the reaction under the preexilic prophets resulting in the 
legislation of Deuteronomy.^ 

The property-concept, in this early form of slavery, was not 
only fundamental but also comprehensive. It included practical- 
ly every person, aside from the heads of families, in the Hebrew 

1 "The vicissitudes of national life which induce and perpetuate slavery, bring us 
to the very root and fibre of the social system in Israel." McCurdy, op. cit., Vol. 2, 
p. 168. 

2 Gen. 12:16; 20:14; 24:35; 30:43; 32:5. It has been argued that slavery 
among the Hebrews was essentially different from slavery among other peoples, upon 
the ground that the Hebrew designation of a slave (ebed) denotes merely a laborer 
and not a thing bound or captured as the Greek doulos or the Latin mancipium 
implies. (See Spencer, Descriptive Sociology, No. 7, p. 4.) But this view is un- 
tenable. The annotation may differ, but the connotation of the concept of slavery 
has been identical wherever slavery has existed. This is abundantly proved not only 
by the treatment of captives but even more explicitly by the legal term for slave, as 
expressed in the C code (Ex. .21:21). "He is his money" is the short and concise 
definition of the relation between the master and the slave. The word used for 
"money" is keseph which means "silver." It is to be noted that this definition is 
given in the case of a master killing his slave, and occurs immediately after a strict 
limitation upon the master's right, thereby establishing the fact that the strong hu- 
mane element in the Hebrew slave regulations had other sources than a fundamentally 
different concept of slavery itself. 

3 If this late reaction is placed as the basis of the Hebrew conception of slavery, 
and the Deuteronomic legislation — not to speak of the Priestly regulations — is 
viewed as prior to the abuses which it aimed to correct, then no clear idea of the 
property-concept involved in the Hebrew institution of slavery is possible. 



18 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 

population under the principle of the pattia potestas. The wife 
and the children were as completely a property of the husband 
and the father, so far as the right of acquisition went, as were the 
hapless captives in war. Differentiation \ntli respect to the 
right of use and of disposition, however, was early introduced. 

In this period, practically all the labor was done by slaves.* 
In the early stages of the institution, the slave was a member of 
the family,^ occupied positions of trust, and could even possess 
property and reach affluence.'^ Thus, slavery was looked upon as 
the normal condition of social relations and involved no disgrace. 

The first method of acquisition of human property is generally 
conceded to be the capture of human beings in time of war. The 
traditional stories, notwithstanding their idyllic portraits of 
patriarchal life, clearly reveal that capture in war is one of the 
primary methods in the acquisition of property in men. When 
Laban hurls the strongest accusation possible against Jacob for 
escaping with the wives which he had bought, he has no stronger 
invective to use than that Jacob had "carried away his daughters 
as captives of the sword. ' ' '^ This shows that the captive was 
considered the object of the most absolute ownership. The rea- 
son is not far to seek. The captor had a perfect right to kill his 
prey, which is usually done among savages, and we find abundant 
evidence of this practice among the Hebrews. The C code has 
not one line of regulation, far less protection, for captives taken 
in war. It is first in the D code that we find any sign of such a 
protection.^ Though the nomadic and pastoral life offered less 
occasion for this practice than the conquest, still this right is viv- 
idly reflected in such stories as the J narrative of the destruction 
of the inhabitants of Shechem.^ 

At the period of the conquest Israel exemplifies the fierceness 
of this destruction of the captives that fell into their hands, just 
as other nations have done at that stage of development. The en- 
tire people is represented as apprehending this fate for them- 
selves.^'^ Gaining the upper hand, however, they are consistent, 

4 Gen. 3:17; 18:7; 24:10, 20, 26:15, 19, 32. 

5 Gen. 24:2; 1 Sam. 25:14-17. 

6 1 Sam. 9:7-8; 2 Sam. 9:9-10. 
V Gen. 31:26. 

8 Deut. 21:10-14. 

9 Gen. 34:25 ff. 

10 Num. 14:3. "Wherefore doth Jehovah bring us unto this land, to fall by the 
sword? Our wives and our little ones will be a prey." 



PROPERTY CONCEPTS OF EARLY HEBREWS 19 

and deal out this lot in full measure to the conquered." The ex- 
ample set by Adoni-besek ^- is taken up by the Israelites and vis- 
ited upon himself/^ Joshua 's treatment of the five kings ^* leaves 
no uncertainty as to the conception of the conqueror's right over 
the captured. The J narrative of Barak's blessing contains 
striking evidence of divine sanction of such practices.^^ It is in- 
teresting to note that the same principles are followed when the 
Hebrew tribes clash/*^ so that the practical wiping out of a whole 
tribe is referred to as simply a ' ' gleaning. ' ' ^^ 

David's raids/^ especially while he dwelt in the country of the 
Philistines, and his later treatment of the Moabites/^ show us 
that this right did not decrease but rather increased in severity, 
as the literal interpretation of the following passage indicates: 
"And he brought forth the people that were therein, and put 
them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of 
iron, and made them pass through the brickkiln : and thus did he 
unto all the cities of the children of Ammon. ' ' -" This univer- 
sally acknowledged right is well formulated in the words of Ben- 
hadad to King Ahab : ' ' Thy silver and thy gold is mine : thy 
wives and thy children, even the goodliest, are mine.'' And it 
elicits from the king this answer: "I am thine and all that I 
have." ^^ As a terrible example of what this right meant, even 
at this late period of the divided kingdom, the atrocious practices 
of Hazael ^^ and Jehu -^ may be pointed out. 

11 -Tosh. 6:21. "And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and 
woman, both young and old." 

112 Jud?. 1:7. "Threescore and ten kings, having their thumbs and their great 
toes cut off, gathered their food under my table." 

i'3 Judg. 1:6. "And they . . . cut off his thumbs and his great toes." 

14 Josh. 16-:21, 26. "Joshua called for all the men of Israel, and said to the chiefs 
of the men of war that went with him, Come near, put your feet upon the necks of 
these kings. And afterwards Joshua . . . hanged them on fi\'e trees." 

15 Num. 34:8. "And he shall break their bones in pieces." 

r6 Judg. 12:6. "And there fell at that time of Ephraim forty and two thousand." 
Judg. 20:42-44. "And there fell of Benjamin eighteen thousand men." 

17 Judg. 20:45. Hebrew word alal ; used in the same sense in .Jer. 6:9. 

18 1 Sam. 25:22, 34; 27:9-11. "David . . . left neither man nor woman 
alive." 

19 2 Sam. 8:2. "With two lines measured he to put to death and with one full 
line to keep alive." This was done after they were "down on the ground." 

20 2 Sam. 12:31. 

21 1 Ki. 20:3-4. 

22 2 Ki. 8:12; 15:16. "And all the women therein that were with child he 
ripped up." 

23 2 Ki. 10:7, 8, 14. .Jehu piled the heads of seventy sons of the king in two 
great piles outside the city gates. 



20 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 

This property-rigkt in humanity, as an object of absolute own- 
ership, when captured in war, is not rejected by the prophets. 
In spite of their agitation against other forms of oppression, 
still they see in war only the means of divine retributory justice. 
Clear statements of this fact are afforded in the early prophets, 
' ' They shall fall by the sword ; their infants shall be dashed in 
pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. ' ' ^* This 
is the sentence against Samaria, because "she hath rebelled 
against her God." Hence we conclude that with the exception 
of a general softening of this right in the case of an Israelite, this 
concept has become strengthened by the bloody warfare of the 
Hebrews on Palestinian soil. 

With this absolute right to the life of the captive, continuing 
unabated as we have seen, the property-right in captives, when 
the captor spared their lives, is, of course, self-evident. The ex- 
ample of Laban, already cited, points to the early practice of 
sparing the captives suitable for replenishing the depleted num- 
ber of warriors. A very ancient example of this is undoubtedly 
the words put in the mouth of Sisera's mother by the Hebrew 
prophetess Deborah : ' ' Have they not found, have they not di- 
vided the spoil ? A damsel, two damsels to every man. ' ' -^ The 
notable element of the capture of wives among primitive people 
may be reflected in the wholseale capture of the virgins of Jabesh- 
gileadj to provide wives for the remnant of the tribe of Benja- 
min.^^ Of the capture of wives in time of peace we have the 
clearest illustration in this connection, where the two hundred 
Benjamites that were still left without wives were told to provide 
themselves with such by lying in wait for the daughters of Shiloh, 
at the annual harvest-festival, and to "catch every man his 
wife."" 

How far the legislation of the words of E regarding the seduc- 
tion of virgins -^ is a survival of such a practice as the capture of 

24 Hos. 13:16. See also Amos 7:17 and Jer. 15:3; 16:16. 

25 Juda;. 5:30, The ease of Abraham is in point here as showing E's conception of 
the property-right in a captured woman. Abraham receives sheep, oxen, men-servants, 
and maid-servants, and one thousand pieces of silver from Abimelech, of whose harem 
Sara had been a member for some time. Turning over this payment he tells Sara: 
"Behold it is for thee a covering of the eyes to all that are with thee; and in respect 
of all thou art righted." (Gen. 20:14-16.) 

26 Judg. 21:12, 14. 

27 Judg. 21 :21, 23. 

28 Ex. 22:16-17. 



PROPERTY CONCEPTS OF EARLY HEBREWS 21 

wives is impossible to determine definitely. It gives us, however, 
a clue to the almost perfect silence as to this form of acquiring 
possession of a woman. Let it be noted that the cases discussed 
dealt with the capture of Hebrews. An increasing complexity 
of settled agricultural life made woman more valuable. So also 
the frequent wars. Hence possessors of daughters and female 
slaves naturally guarded their own so far as possible and insisted 
upon the payment of a mohar later to be noticed. The legal 
point in the question of seduction, it will be noted, is just the re- 
muneration for the pecuniary loss suffered by the father, who 
was the owner of the virgin, whether daughter or slave. A fur- 
ther helpful suggestion is given by the rule that the money was to 
be paid whether the woman was given to the seducer or not. 
This law is evidence of the fact that purchase of \\dves had super- 
seded a still older and more antiquated method of acquiring the 
property-right in a woman by simple capture. Moreover, by the 
time of the Deuteronomic legislation it is plain from the regula- 
tion concerning the treatment of a foreign woman, captured in 
war, that acquisition of property-rights in Hebrew women by cap- 
ture had practically ceased.-** "While the pecuniary interest 
tended to discourage such a practice in Hebrew women, it was 
equally strong in encouraging the practice with reference to for- 
eigners,^** until a greater enlightenment and a growing sensi- 
tiveness to abuses called for a regulation of the practice. The 
silence of the prophets upon this subject receives an explanation 
when their belief in the justice of war is recalled. The facts lead 
to the conclusion that the practice of capturing or stealing a He- 
brew woman, while lingering in the memory of the early writers 
and instanced in a few sporadic cases, fell into disuse during this 
early period, and only the foreign captive was considered a prey 
without price. It is unthinkable that the prophets would have 
passed such a practice as wife-capture of Hebrew women by 
without notice, had it existed, and also that the Deuteronomic 
legislation would have protected the foreigner while paying no 
attention to the native captive. 

Thus we see this practice of acquiring women from among the 

29 Deut. 21:10-14. 

so Cp. Num. 31:35-41. Of thirty-two thousand Moabite virgins, the Levites re- 
ceived three hundred and twenty, the priests thirty-two, and the rest were divided be- 
tween the warriors and the congregation. 



22 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 

Hebrews by capture die out in the course of the Hebrew social 
history covered by our period, and a softening of the severity in 
the treatment of the captured foreign woman. 

Very few male slaves were needed in the nomadic and pas- 
toral stage of society. Therefore, the males were usually ex- 
terminated, except under special circumstances. While prac- 
tically all the work was done by slaves, this work was limited in 
extent. A rather remarkable instance of the conception of task- 
work occurs in the familiar narrative in J concerning the op- 
pression of the Hebrews in Egypt.^^ It will be noticed that the 
cause of this oppression is not pictured as a result of war, but 
conceived of as planned to prevent the increase of the tribes, and 
thus to avoid rebellion. 

With the successful beginning of the Conquest we see these 
ideas put in practice by the Hebrews themselves. A striking il- 
lustration is afforded by the ruse of the inhabitants of Gibeon. 
The aim of their repeated pledge of submission to captivity ^^ is 
only to avoid extermination, and the nature of the covenant made 
with them is stated by J in the words, ' ' And Joshua made a cov- 
enant with them to let them live. ' ' ^^ Upon discovery of the de- 
ception, this covenant is not violated, but the curse of perpetual 
bondage as "hewers of wood and drawers of water" is pro- 
nounced upon theni.^* This evidently proved advantageous to 
the Hebrews and when, owing to a more settled life for the He- 
brews after the Conquest, the enslavement of the Canaanites 
proved more profitable than their complete destruction the males 
as well as the females were spared and enslaved.^^ J states ex- 
plicitly that this was the case especially "when the children of 
Israel were waxen strong. ' ' '^ 

We look in vain for any modification of the lot of the captive 
slave in this period. To spare the life of the captive was the 
height of clemency and the task-work was left to the individual 
owner's regulation and according to his interest. In the D code, 
following this period, we do find a softening of the lot of the 

31 Ex. 1:8 ff. 

32 Josh. 9:8, 9, 11. 

33 Josh. 9:15. 

34 Josh. 9:23, 27. 

35 Josh. 16:10, Judg. 16:21. 

36 Josh. 17:13. 



PROPERTY CONCEPTS OF EARLY HEBREWS 23 

slave, in that one who had been taken as a wife or a concubine 
could not be sold.^^ 

The next important form of acquisition of property-right in 
human beings is through birth within the "house" or family. 
Definite evidence upon this point appears at first sight to be very 
meager if not altogether lacking. The chief reference is found 
in connection with the household of Abraham, in the designation 
of his chief slave and steward as one ' ' born in the house. ' ' ^^ 
But the literal rendering is "son of the house" (Ben-heyith) . 
This leads us at once to the root of this property concept. The 
child of the master and the chief wife was subject to the right of 
ownership as well as the child of the slave.^^ The reason is that 
the wife herself is the property of the husband. Keeping this in 
mind, it will not seem strange if the word ' ' son ' ' is used in the 
sense of offspring upon the basis of property-right in the mother, 
rather than upon the basis of direct parenthood.*" This is clearly 
so in the case cited. Dammesek Eliezer is called a son although 
the context proves that he did not stand in blood-relation to 
Abraham. This may, therefore, be taken as the primary con- 
ception of ownership of those "born in the house." It is borne 
out by the fact of the legitimacy of the children, which depended 
entirely upon the property-right in the woman. *^ Of course, the 
idea of fatherhood soon comes into the foreground but we have 
abundant evidence of the property-right in the woman as the 
primary condition for the legitimacy of the child. The oAvner- 
ship of a "handmaiden" gave Sara, Leah, and Rachel legitimate 
offspring.*' A distinction, the steps of which can be seen in the 
cases of Jephthah *^ and Hosea,** in this respect develops before 
the Exile, with respect to the class of slaves "bought for money. " 

The master's property-right over the members of the household 
was originally as absolute as the right over captives.*^ Abraham 

37 Deut. 21:10-14. 

38 Gen. 15:3. 

39 Gen. 19:8; Judg. 19:24. See also Smith, Kinship and Marriage^ pp. 291 fF., 
and for the ancient rigidity of the paternal power compare Mommsen, History of 
Rome, Vol. 1, pp. 88-92. 

40 See Maine, Early Institutions, pp. 310-311. 

41 Cp. Robertson Smith, op. cit., pp. 129-155. 

42 Gen. 16:2; 30:1 ff. 

43 Judg. 11:1 ff. 
44Hos. 1:2; 4:14. 

45 Dr. Frants Buhl says: "Der Vater ist Herr im Hause. Sein Eigenthum sind 



24 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 

had a perfect right to expose his son with the bond-woman *® and 
an equally absolute right to sacrifice the son of the principal 
wife.*^ Likewise Laban disposes of his daughters and the price 
paid for them as well.^** So firmly rooted is this right that Laban 
could tell Jacob concerning the daughters long ago sold: ''The 
daughters are my daughters and the children are my children. ' ' *^ 
But perhaps the best illustration is the matter of fact way in 
which the Judgments of E treat of this concept. "If thou buy 
an Hebrew servant, "^° "and if a man sell his daughter, "^^ 
these sentences indicate that the property-right in children was 
so common and generally acknowledged as not even to merit a 
second thought. The conclusion drawn from the language used 
in the designation of Eliezer finds powerful support in the rule 
laid down in these Judgments: "If the master give him {i. e. 
the slave) a wife, and she bear him sons or daughters; the wife 
and her children shall be her master's."^' Does the fact need 
to be pointed out that in this case ownership and not paternity 
serves as a basis for the child's relation to the master? 

An interesting emphasis is placed upon this method of acquir- 
ing property by the indemnity put upon the one causing the de- 
struction of an unborn child,^^ clearly pointing to an actual pe- 
cuniary value even before birth. 

Aside from a growing differentiation between the wives of 
different ranks and its reflection upon the children born from 
them, the property-right in those "bom in the house," whether 
children or slaves, continued strong throughout this early period. 
The right over the child 's life is reflected in Jephthah 's vow ^* 
and in the attempted execution of the rash vow of Saul,^^ as well 

Weib und Kinder, wesshalb er seine Frau verstossen und seine Kinder als Sklaven 
verkaufen kann. Urspriinglich hatte er gewiss auch unbeschrankte richterliche 
Ge-n'alt, so dass er seine Kinder mit dem Tod bestrafen konnte." Die socialem, Ver- 
hSltnisse der Jsraeliten, p. 29. And McCurdy draws this conclusion: "We have 
seen that, as far as the testimony of the narrative portions of the Old Testament is 
concerned, the power of the father was reckoned to be absolute." (Op. cit. Vol. 2, 
p. 69.) 

46 Gen. 21:14. 

47 Gen. 22:10. 

48 Gen. 29:19-30; 31:15. 

49 Gen. 31:43. 

50 Ex. 21 :2. 

51 Ex. 21:7. 

52 Ex. 21:4. 

53 Ex. 21:22. 
54Judg. 11:31, 34, 39. 
55 1 Sam. 14:44. 



PROPERTY CONCEPTS OF EARLY HEBREWS 25 

as in his attempt to kill Jonathan because of his friendship with 
David.^*^ 

This extreme right, however, is not countenanced by the proph- 
ets who arraign the people for "burning their sons and their 
daughters in the fire. ' ' " The relation, moreover, is fully rec- 
ognized in the question: "is Israel a servant? Is he a home- 
born slave ? Why is he spoiled ? " ^^ pointing to a differentiation 
between the slave and the member of the family that is not to be 
spoiled. It is interesting to note that speaking in the name of 
Yahweh the prophet says : "I will cause them to eat the flesh of 
their sons and the flesh of their daughters, ' ' ^^ implying a grow- 
ing sense of the sacredness of the life of one's own child. 

This development and perhaps even a further extension of it, 
is to be traced in the later writers. Joel speaks \\dth reprobation 
of the practice of disposing of boys and girls for the purpose of 
drunkenness and vice.*''' And the Priestly ^^Titer clearly dis- 
tinguishes between the son and the slave acquired in either of the 
two ways, ' ' bom in the house " or " bought with money. ' ' ®^ 
This concept, therefore, was slightly modified but did not fade 
out entirely during this period. 

The third form, or method, by which property-rights in men 
were acquired was by purchase. As already noted, this custom 
is based upon the rights that have occupied our attention in the 
treatment of the two preceding modes of acquisition. It mil be 
convenient for our purpose to distinguish between men and 
women in this method of purchase, especially with reference to 
the limitations imposed by the early legislation. 

The keynote of the slave-trade is expressed in the legal defini- 
tion of the slave referred to at the beginning of this chapter: 
"he is his money [silver]."*'- The right to trade in men is the 
cornerstone of the first legislation. To its proper regulation the 

56 1 Sam. 20:33. 

57 Jer. 7:31; 19:5; 32:35. This prophet, however, recognizes the existence of 
the ancient concept, placing- the property of flocks and herds, sons and daugthers in 
the closest juxtaposition, and expresses both categories of possession by the common 
phrase, "labor of our fathers" (3:24). Isaiah speaks in the same strain, implying 
the prevalence of regarding the children as the possession of the parents (13:16; 
14:21). 

58 Jer. 2:14. 

59 Jer. 19:9. 

60 Joel 3:3. 

61 Gen. 17:12, 13, 27. 

62 Ex. 21:21. 



26 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 

opening paragraphs and the larger part of the Judgments of E 
are devoted.^^ 

The only specific case cited as an occasion for a compulsory- 
sale of men is in the case of theft, when the thief "has noth- 
ing." ^* The implied reason for perpetual slavery on the part of 
the liberated slave is the affection for the family which the master 
has given him and which he must leave if he goes out,*'^ The mo- 
tives for the sale of men are otherwise not mentioned in these 
Judgments, but must be inferred from actual cases. 

Few actual sales of men are recorded in the earliest period. 
The sale of Joseph is the most conspicuous. He is sold first by 
his brothers '^^ to the Ishmaelites, and then sold by the latter to 
the Egyptian courtier.**^ From the detailed account given of this 
transaction it is safe to assume that this was a normal condition 
of a legal trade. The suretyship entered into by Judah with his 
father as a pledge for the safe return of Benjamin *^^ points to 
this right, and his willingness to be sold as a slave when put to 
the test proves its validity .^^ The wholesale purchase of prac- 
tically an entire nation reflects the same practice. ' ' Buy us . . . 
for bread, and we . . . will be servants unto Pharaoh. ' ' ''^ 
"And as for the people. He removed them to the cities from one 
end of the border of Egypt even to the other end thereof. ' ' ^^ 

The motive here suggested as being a case of necessity can be 
traced in its further development later on. We are told of a 
widow who is complaining that the creditor is about to procure 
her two sons as an indemnity for the debt she could not pay.''^ 
And David is said to have received into his band of outlaws 
' ' every one that was in debt. ' ' ^^ 

By the prophetic period two elements in the practice and the- 
ory of Hebrew slavery have become distinct. The one is that 
the love of gain is the leading motive for this traffic ; the other 
that the ethical consciousness of the prophets condemns this prac- 
tice. Amos proclaims a national punishment because ' ' they sold 

6'3Ex. 21:1-11, 20, 26, 27, 31, 32. 

64 Ex. 22:3. 

65 Ex. 21:4-5. 

66 Gen. 37:27-28. 

67 Gen. 39:1. 

68 Gen. 43:9. 

69 Gen. 44:33. 

70 Gen. 47:19. 

71 Gen. 47:21. 

72 2 Ki. 4:1 ff. 

73 1 Sam. 22 :2. 



PROPERTY CONCEPTS OF EARLY HEBREWS 27 

the righteous for silver and the poor for a pair of shoes. "^* Mieah 
complains that ' ' they hunt every man his brother with a net, ' ' ^^ 
and Isaiah has this suggestive phrase : "I shall make a man 
more precious than fine gold ; even a man than the golden wedge 
of Ophir. " ^*' It is to be noted, however, that this applies only 
to the native Hebrew. Thus, we notice a powerful reaction 
against the traffic which tended to modify it but was wholly un- 
able to abolish it. The steps in the development of this trade in 
men seem to be war, theft, necessity, and finally the love of gain 
or profit that called forth the denunciation of the prophets. 

The practice of buying women has already been indicated. 
The patriarchal stories describe it in minute detail.'^ The same 
principle is involved in the gifts of precious things to the brother 
and the mother of Rebeckah, as well as the gifts given by Abim- 
elech to Abraham as a "covering of the eyes" for the temporary 
possession of Sara.''® 

It seems perfectly safe to infer that at first it was only the 
powerful master that could prevent wife-capture and always de- 
mand a price. Thus Caleb gives his daughter as the price of 
prowess,^" and Saul promises his daughter to the one who should 
kill Goliath.®" This price paid to the father then came to be re- 
garded as a dowry (mokar) which in reality is nothing else than 
the original price of purchase. Therefore David reasons with 
those who advise him to become the son-in-law of the king thus : 
"Seemeth it to you a light thing to be the king's son-in-law, see- 
ing that I am a poor man and lightly esteemed. ' ' ®^ 

It is evident that this purchase in the case of the wealthy and 
powerful soon became more or less obscured, while it still con- 
tinued among the less prosperous. This we find, indeed, implied 
in the prophetic agitation against economic oppression. Upon 
this basis, therefore, we may look for an incipient differentiation 
during our period. And it is found in the cases already alluded 
to of Jephthah and Hosea. It was on account of his descent on 
his mother's side that Jephthah was driven out from the family.®^ 

74 Amos 2:6. 

75 Mic. 7:12. 

76 Is. 13:12. 

77 Gen. 29:18, 23, 27, 28. 

78 Gen. 24:53; 20:16. 

79 Josh. 15:16. 

80 1 Sam. 17:25. 

81 1 Sam. 18:23. 
«2 Judg. 11:1, 2. 



28 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 

Hosea is twice told to take a wife of whoredom and upon the sec- 
ond occasion of this command he describes the purchase as fol- 
lows : " So I bought her to me for fifteen pieces of silver, and a 
homer of barley and a half -homer of barley. ' ' ®^ We are not in- 
formed of such a ease elsewhere among the people at this time. 
It would also seem as though the action of the prophet was meant 
as an object lesson to the people. It is therefore probable that 
the practice of buying the actual \^^fe had been abandoned dur- 
ing our period and that the dowry was paid to the wife instead 
of the father.^* This would only mean, however, that the pur- 
chase for the purpose of offspring had faded out ; not that the 
practice of selling women for service was done away with, still 
less that the property-right in the woman was abrogated. In 
support of this it need only be stated that the Deuteronomic 
code recognizes the right to sell men and women.^^ Important 
modifications occur, especially in the Priestly code ®^ in the case 
of the sale of Hebrews, although the right is recognized. To 
deal with this phase of the subject, it is necessary to trace the 
development of limitations from the beginning. 

The first two modes of acquisition have, as has been noted, 
practically no restriction put upon them, but with the introduc- 
tion of the third form of gaining a property-right in human be- 
ings, that is, by purchase, the first limitation appears. Man 
had an actual value in money that had to be respected. By the 
time of the composition of the C code another limitation, an eth- 
ical one, is imposed. A human being was not to be possessed by 
mere might, or by simple capture, as in the case of actual war. 
In contrast with the practice reflected in the selling of Joseph, 
by the time the C code was written a step in advance had been 
taken. It is quite remarkable how emphatically this is laid dowTi 
in E's Judgments. "He that stealeth a man and selleth him, or 
if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death. ' ' " 
Disrespect for ownership and disrespect for life were regarded 
as identical in the legal punishment meted out to the transgressor 
of either one.^* The valuation of a son or daughter is left to be 

83 Hos. 3:2. 

84 Cp. Encyclopedia Bihlica, s. v. "Marriage," Vol. 3, p. 2942. 
8.5 Deut. 15:12. 

86 Lev. 25:39. 

87 Ex. 21:16. 

88 Ex. 21:12. 



PROPERTY CONCEPTS OF EARLY HEBREWS 29 

agreed upon but the common servant has a legal value of thirty 
shekels of silver.^'' 

Attention is called to the significant expression of Amos, fre- 
quently repeated: "Selling for a pair of shoes." It requires 
no stretch of imagination to detect an indignation implied in the 
very cheapness of the price. That indignation is a new thing in 
the Hebrew concepts of property. That the principle of the 
price-value maintained itself until very late is, however, well at- 
tested, not only by the transaction of Hosea but by the minute 
regulation of this value in a late P. document ^° and also by the 
general regulation of the redemption money.^^ 

With respect to the limitations of the right of "use and abuse" 
the Hebrew legislation of slavery stands unique in the annals of 
antiquity. The primary and most important of these limitations 
is included under the idea of the Sabbatical Year : "If thou 
buy an Hebrew servant, six years shall he serve : and in the sev- 
enth he shall go out free for nothing. " "^ It is important to no- 
tice that this applies only to the male slave. The female slave, 
it is specifically stated, "shall not go out as the men-servants 
do. ' ' ^^ The limitation of the period of slavery for the male 
would, however, affect the wife also if the marriage was consum- 
mated before the sale into slavery occurred. "If he come in by 
himself he shall go out by himself : if he be married, then his wife 
shall go out with him."^* Evidently, the property-right in the 
woman, which the man exercised prior to his enslavement, is the 
reason for this exception to female slavery. If the marriage had 
taken place after the enslavement the limitation is null and void. 
The wife and the children as well belong to the master.^^ But 
the very right to perpetuate his servitude contains a limitation 
upon the master's right to separate him from his family. The 
statement ' ' If the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my 
wife and my children ; I will not go out free ' ' ^^ seems to imply 
the understanding that the master is to let him enjoy this sec- 

will be recalled, is represented as sold for twenty pieces of silver (Gen. 37:28), while 
Hosea's wife is procured at the regular rate stipulated in the C code (Hos. 3:2). 

89 Ex. 21:32. Cp. Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. 4, p. 466. Joseph, it 

90 Lev. 27:1 if. 

91 Lev. 25:51. 

92 Ex. 21:2. 

93 Ex. 21:7. 

94 Ex. 21:3. 

95 Ex. 21:4. 
9GEx. 21:5. 



30 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 

ondaiy property-right in his family. Whether the words ' ' he shall 
serve him forever" express a definite limitation upon the right 
of the master to dispose of such a bondman is difficult to deter- 
mine though it appears very probable. No actual case of this 
voluntarily perpetuated bondage is cited in our sources, so that 
the only clue to this is in the case of a slave represented as hav- 
ing a family. At least one clear case of this kind occurs, that of 
Ziba who is said to have had ''fifteen sons and twenty ser- 
vants. "^^ 

An implied limitation is to be found in the fact that we search 
in vain for a fugitive-slave law in the early Hebrew legislation. 
That there were fugitive slaves is well attested, as is seen in the 
answer that the servants of David receive from Nabal, ' ' there be 
many servants now-a-days that break away every man from his 
master. "^« Another instance is found in the first book of 
Kings ^^ where the growing practice of escaping slaves and the 
lack of an adequate slave law is strongly attested. Shimei lost 
his life because he had to fetch his runaway slaves back in per- 
son. We may assume that he would not have jeopardized his 
life, had an effective law for the retrieving of slaves existed. For 
the most part this limitation upon the master's right was made in 
the interest of the male slave, though there is one example for 
the female in the case of the Levite's concubine.^°° However, the 
Deuteronomic legislation against the return of a runaway slave 
shows that such a practice must have come into existence in the 
period between the rise of the monarchy and the formation of the 
D code. While we cannot trace the development in detail, we 
know that by the time of the Deuteronomic legislation a reaction 
against such a practice had crystallized into a definite prohibi- 
tion.^*^^ Whether this applied also to female slaves we do not 
know. 

A few general limitations M^ere equally valid for both sexes. 
The master was forbidden to kill his slave outright; and imme- 
diate death caused by a weapon (rod) involved a "sure" punish- 
ment the nature of which is not specified."- It is absurd to 

97 2 Sam. 9:10. 

98 1 Sam. 25:10. 

99 1 Ki. 2:39 ff. 

100 Judg. 19:2-3. 

101 Dt. 23:1,5. "Thou shnlt not deliver unto his master a servant which is escaped 
from his master unto thee." 

102 Ex. 21:20. 



PROPERTY CONCEPTS OF EARLY HEBREWS 31 

think that this punishment was death,^"^ and we need only read 
the next sentence to realize how little this limitation meant. 
"Notwithstanding, if he [the slave] continue a day or two, he 
shall not be punished." ^°* The very indefiniteness of the lan- 
guage — "a day or two" — is eloquent in its emphasis upon the 
fundamental concept of the property value of the slave, in show- 
ing that when death was not inflicted at once, for example, in the 
heat of passion, the motive for protection was recognized to be 
the pecuniary investment represented by the slave, as is, indeed, 
also specifically stated, ' ' for he is his money. ' ' ^°^ 

An apparently more important limitation is found in the case 
of bodily injury. The master forfeited his investment in the 
slave if he inflicted permanent injury. The loss of an eye or a 
tooth is mentioned. For the loss of either one, at the hand of 
the master, the slave could claim his liberty.^"*' 

The last limitation to be noted in the C code is the seventh-day 
rest. ' ' Six days thou shalt do thy w^ork, and on the seventh day 
thou shalt rest: that thine ox and thine ass may have rest, and 
the son of thy hand-maid, and the stranger may be refreshed. " ^"'^ 

It would be intensely interesting to study these limitations in 
their practical application, but this we are unable to do for the 
lack of concrete material. The development of these limitations 
is also obscure. Besides the D code, already touched upon, we 
have one illustration of a practical attempt to liberate the 
slaves.^°^ This emancipation includes the women as well as the 
men, and thus shows Deuteronomic influences.^''® But the im- 
portant part to notice is, that even at this late date of Zedekiah 
these limitations are extended only to the Hebrew slaves. 

This indicates the direction of the development of these limita- 

103 This is the view of VN^.illon in his tliree volume work, Historie de I'esclavape 
dans I'antiqtiite. He says: "Le maitre qui a tu§ son esclave, est puni de mort." 
And the reason he gives for this view is this, "car la loi qui defende de verser le 
sange humain compte Fesclave parmi les hommes." The important exception he dis- 
misses with a footnote thus: "la loi exceptait le cas on la mort n'etait point censee 
donnee avec intention." Vol. 1, p. 10. 

104 Ex. 21:21. 

105 Ex. 21:21. 

106 Ex. 21:26-27. 

107 Ex. 23:12. 

108 Jer. 34:8, 9. "Zedekiah had made a covenant . . . that every man 
should let his man-servant, and every man his maid-eervant, that is a Hebrew or a 
Hebrewess, go free ; that none should make bondmen of them, to wit, of a Jew his 
brother." 

109 "And all the princes and all the people obeyed, that had entered into the cov- 
enant, . . . they obeyed, and let them go." (Ibid., v. 10.) 



32 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 

tions and shows that except between Hebrews, among whom the 
conquest and the national life had developed a free growth of the 
* ' consciousness of kind, ' ' the property right in slaves maintained 
itself intact throughout our period. The outcome of the case 
under discussion goes far to prove this. The release was tem- 
porary, '^ under the influence of a temporary panic," as McCurdy 
thinks.^^" In this early period, therefore, we find but very little 
progress in the development of the limitations on the property- 
right in men. A more fruitful field will be the study of the 
bondage of women, in which greater progress was made ; though 
this progress is more in the nature of a distinction, on the one 
hand between the native and the foreign wife, and on the other 
between the wife and the concubine and the female servant rather 
than a fundamental change in the property-concept itself. 

The right of acquisition of female property was limited only 
by the cost of purchase and maintenance. ^^^ We have noted 
traces even of a time when the woman was to be had for the mere 
taking. Up through this period she is the chattel of man. "It 
would be misleading to apply the term 'free woman' to any 
Israelitess, except perhaps a mdow. "^"^ It is important to no- 
tice that in the Hebrew terminology of the early period, 
"woman" and "wife" are identical terms. One word, ishshak, 
includes both concepts; and it is only the context that is re- 
sponsible for the differentiation by the translators of the Bible. 
This identity of terms indicates that the original notion of 
woman's function of motherhood was the fundamental idea 
among the Hebrews. While treated as a valuable chattel, woman 
was not altogether regarded from the point of working efficiency. 
' ' Women were looked upon rather as potential mothere, destined 
to give the tribe the most priceless of all gifts, namely, sons. ' ' ^^^ 
This is reflected by the women themselves. "Give me children 
or I die,"^" strikes the keynote of the deepest emotion of a 

110 0?). cit., Vol. 2, p. 173, footnote. 

"But afterwards they turned, and caused the servants and the handmaids, whom 
they had let go free, to return, and brought them into subjection for servants and 
for handmaids." (Jer. 34:11.) 

111 See Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, s. ?'. "F.imily," Vol. 1, pp. 846-850. 
Judg. 8:30; 9:2. 

112 Ibid., p. 847. "His [the husband's] wives were his property, and absolutely 
sub.iect to his authority." Gp. instances cited in footnote 115 below. See also the 
article "Familie und Ehe," in Herzog, Realen Encyelopedie, Vol. 5, p. 738. 

115 Encyclopedia Biblica, p. 1500. 
114 Gen. 30:1. 



PROPEKTY CONCEPTS OF EARLY HEBREWS 33 

Hebrew woman. In so far as this conception obtains, it is a limi- 
tation upon the property-right of man in the use of woman. It 
would tend to limit his right over her person and restrict it to 
association for the purpose of offspring. The rich terminology 
in the differentiation of degrees of the marital relation points to 
such a limitation.^ ^'^ But, recalling what was said about the right 
to those ''born in the house," we are cautioned not to consider 
this limitation too seriously, 

Hebrew terminology affords another term that sheds light on 
the property-right in women. The husband is called baal which 
means "owner" or ''possessor." This emphasizes /the necessity 
of caution in speaking of limitations to the property-right in 
women. ^^"^ 

The mohar is, in the strictest sense, also a limitation, and is 
but another name for ' ' price ; ' ' f ollomng the same principle in 
the ease of women as we noted in the case of men. As it grad- 
ually grew out of an earlier and freer mode of appropriation, so 
it gradually gave way to the later conception of ' ' dowry, ' ' when 
the more or less absolute property-right in woman faded from 
sight. 

The limitation of the period of servitude does not exist for 
women sold into slavery during this early period. When sold, 
they are sold for life. Upon this point the C code is explicit and 
emphatic : " If a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant, she 
shall not go out as the men-servants do." ^" The context, while 
it does not state specifically that the purchase must be for the 
purpose of wafehood or concubinage, is nevertheless strongly sug- 
gestive of this as the predominant motive. The rules and regu- 
lations affect only the woman who is "espoused" either to the 
master himself or to his son. No law protects this relation be- 
tween slaves, except by means of perpetual slavery voluntarily 
entered into by the male.^^® But if the woman stands in the 
marital relation to the master or to his son, she is protected 
against ejection. If she is the concubine or the wife of the mas- 

115 Among these are amah, "maid," .ihip-shah, "maidseryant," pillegesh, "concu- 
bine," qedeshah, and zanah, "harlot." Compare with this the dark pictures of the 
husband's right as painted in Judg. 19:25-30; and the father's right as seen in Gen. 
19:8, and Judg. 19:24. 

116 For a full discussion of this subject, see Smith, Kinship and Marriage, pp. 73 ff. 

117 Ex. 21:7. 

118 See p. 29. 



34 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 

ter, he is under the obligation to accept a redemption price, if he 
should become displeased with her, and he is definitely forbidden 
to sell her ' ' unto a strange people. ' ' ^^^ The purchase of a 
maiden for a son entitled her to treatment as a daughter.^-" 

The most important of all the limitations upon the owner of a 
woman is that of the right of the first wife upon the occasion of 
the man 's purchase of a second woman. " If he take him another 
wife; her [that is, the first wife's] food, her raiment, and her 
duty of marriage shall he not diminish.^-^ This strict injunction 
depicts the probable practices with reference to an ancient "non- 
support" in colors not overbright. The restriction of abuse is 
clinched by the statement of a specific penalty for the violation 
of this law, namely a forfeited property-right. "And if he do 
not these three unto her, then shall she go out for nothing, with- 
out money. ' ' ^^^ 

Finally, the limitations of servitude of females have progressed 
so far during this period that in the laws of the D code, the 
woman is entitled to the same privilege of emancipation on the 
seventh year as is the male slave.^-^ 

The development we have traced shows the woman as the first 
to be enslaved and the last to escape from the rigor of bondage. 
It shows further how closely woman 's bondage and emancipation 
is bound up with the social purposes of the family relations, and 
how, both in its origin and its history, female slavery, at least, is 
conditioned upon social rather than upon purely economic con- 
siderations. 



11.9 Ex. 21:8. Here is practically the only restriction on the right of disposition 
that we find in this period. 

120 Ex. 21:9. 

121 Ex. 21:10. 

122 Ex. 21:11. It might be in place here to notice the primary right of the first 
husband as indicated in the case of David and Michal, the daughter of Saul. After 
years of separation, during which time Michal was the wife of Paltiel, her erstwhile 
husband, David, when strong enough to do so, demands her back; and she is taken 
by force from her last husband. (2 Sam. 3:14-16.) The case of Hosea seems to 
show a dissolution of this right as he had to buy his former wife back again; and we 
find conclusive proof of the change in this practice in the D code, by which the return 
to the first husband is positively forbidden. (Deut. 24:4.) 

123 Dt. 15:12-17. 



CHAPTER IV 

PERSONAL PROPERTY 

Ornaments and money as a form of personal property are con- 
sidered to be of a very early origin. The indications are that 
very little distinction existed at first between these two forms of 
property. Indeed, ornaments were at first the only coin in ex- 
istence, and from the omamentive forms of metal, used as a 
medium of exchange, the development of money proper took its 
rise. We find it early in our sources. "Abram was very rich 
in cattle, in silver, and in gold. " ^ No statement as to the form 
is made. The gift of Abimelech is described as pieces of silver,^ 
a term employed also in later instances.^ But this is merely a 
gloss of translators, as the original has only the plain term 
keseph, the primary meaning of which is ''to be pale or white," 
hence the derived meaning of "silver" or "white metal." The 
first conception of the form in which metals were found is ex- 
pressed by the term keli, a word of such a general significance 
that it includes almost any form of ornaments, weapons, or im- 
plements. In connection with ornaments the word is rendered 
"jewels" by the translators. This is the conception of the form 
of the silver and the gold in Abraham 's possession : ' ' And the 
servant brought forth jewels of silver and jewels of gold. ' ' * The 
same phraseology is used to denote the wealth gotten by the 
Israelites before departing from Egypt.^ From such ornaments 
the golden calf is made.® Of the extent to which they were 
used, the description of the spoil of the Midianitcs gives us an 
indication.'^ 



1 Gen. 13:2. 

2 Gen. 20:16. 

3 Gen. 37:28; 45:22. 

4 Gen. 24:53. 

5 Ex. 3:22; 11:2. 

6 Ex. 32:2 ff. 

7 Judg. 8:26. "And the weight of the golden ear-rings that he requested was a 
thousand and seven hundred shekels of gold ; besides the ornaments and collars that 
was on the kings of Median, and beside the chains that were about their camels' 
necks." 



36 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 

The only development that can be determined in this kind of 
possessions is an increase of varieties in the form of these orna- 
ments, plainly indicated by the prophets — one of whom enumer- 
ates over twenty kinds of ornaments and apparel ^ — and then 
the differentiation of ornaments from the weighed money. Dif- 
ferentiation of money from the common form of ornaments ap- 
pears to come quite early, though the conception of the identity 
of the two is indisputable in the early J narrative. It is note- 
M^orthy that the first word we meet in the sources denoting a 
currency in the sense of "money" takes us back to the word 
keseph, ' ' silver. " ® It is rendered literally in the first part of the 
J and E stories in Genesis; ^^ later, it is translated "money." 
This is not due to an unwarrantable arbitrariness on the part of 
the translators, but to the setting in which the stories occur. 
Hence it seems probable that money developed first from silver 
ornaments in Israel. Silver was more common than gold, which 
would account for its early use both for ornaments and as money. 
The first time we meet the term ' ' money ' ' in the J and E docu- 
ments is in the E narrative of the complaints of Laban 's daugh- 
ters that their father had quite devoured their money.^^ A pe- 
culiar word kesitah is used at its next occurrence,^- a word which 
means "lamb," and which has given rise to a variety of infer- 
ences. ^^^ The famine stories seem to show a distinction of silver 
as money or a medium of exchange.^* 

A definite proof of this differentiation is the word shekel, 
which occurs only twice in the entire book of Genesis, in the late 
P account of the purchase of the cave of Macpelah.^^ In the J 
documents, it is found once in Genesis but in a different form 
than that in which it occurs later.^** 

In the C code the two terms keseph and shekel are found side 
by side. Here the distinction of money as an equivalent for 
other forms of property is clear and concise. It is very sugges- 
tive that the word keseph is used in the legal definition of the 

8 Is. 3:18-23; also Jer. 2:32. 

9 Gen. 13:2; 20:16, etc. 

10 Gen. 23:15, 16; 24:35, 53. 

11 Gen. 31:15. 

12 Gen. 33:19. 
1.3 See p. 59. 

14 Gen. 42:1 fF. 

15 Gen. 23:15-16. 

16 Gen. 24:22. 



PKOPERTY CONCEPTS OF EARLY HEBREWS 37 

slave and the word shekel in specifying the exact price of the 
slave. This justifies the inference that there existed the con- 
cept of a medium of exchange and also the specific pieces of 
metal of a certain weight, in the sense of a coin. 

This seems to be as far as the monetary system proceded in the 
earliest period. There is no evidence of any coined money in use ; 
the system of counting metal by weight is clearly proved by the 
prophets. Amos speaks of dishonest practices in the nature of 
"making the ephah small and the shekel great, and dealing 
falsely with balances of deceit. ' ' ^^ And Jeremiah describes in 
detail the weighing out of the price of the field that he bought.^^ 

Weapons and implements follow very much the same lines of 
development as ornaments and money. That there was no dif- 
ferentiation at first between weapons, tools or implements we 
have definite proof in the singular fact that the Hebrews had 
but one word for both forms of property. Strangely enough this 
is the same word that we met in the first description of ornaments ; 
namely, the word keli,^^ which points unmistakably to the sim- 
plicity of this concept and goes far to prove its primitive nature. 
Nearly all of the objects of personal property, enumerated in 
this chapter are by the early Hebrews termed simply keli. 

Undoubtedly the oldest weapon of those mentioned in our 
sources is the sling, which is a great improvement upon throwing 
the stone from the bare hand. We find indications of the use of 
this weapon in war : ' ' There were seven hundred chosen men, 
lef thanded ; every one could sling stones at a hair-breadth and 
not miss. ' ' ^° This high degree of skill with such a weapon is 
significant, and indicates some importance of this primitive wea- 
pon, since it is not likely that men would have become experts at 
handling an antiquated v/eapon ; nor would such men have been 
noted as especially important in actual warfare had another and 
more effective weapon been in general use. Later, we find this 

17 Am. 8:5. 
iSJer. 32:9. 

19 Not only ornaments, weapons, and implements are included under this term, but 
also utensils, vessels, instruments, clothing, furniture, armor, harness, yokes (of 
oxen), and even boats; in short almost every form of equipment for the hunt or for 
war, as vt^ell as for domestic, agricultural, industrial, or commercial pursuits as far as 
each existed. The best rendering of the general idea of this word would seem to be 
"things" or "belongings." W. E. Barnes renders it "movable property," in his article 
^'Armour," in Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. 1, p. 154. 

20 Judg. 20:16. 



38 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 

weapon restricted to the shepherd's use,^^ and its appearance in 
real warfare is scomed.^^ 

The bow and quiver play a conspicuous part in the J narra- 
tives. Here we plainly have an advance in the direction of 
weapons. It is used for the hunt ^^ as well as in war.^* Knives 
of flint are mentioned in connection with the rite of circumci- 
sion ; ^^ but it is impossible to determine in how far this indi- 
cates the absence of metal knives or whether it merely gives a 
sacred significance to the instrument of flint. 

The most typical of the scanty references to the differentiation 
between weapons and implements is found in the description of 
the conditions of Israel just before the decisive struggles with 
the Philistines.^® No weapons are found in the hands of the 
people,^^ nor is even a smith left them for fear that they would 
make for themselves such things. ^^ Being short of weapons, the 
people naturally used whatever they could lay hold of. There- 
fore it is significant that agricultural implements are mentioned, 
not to say introduced, at this point. Shares, coulters, axes, mat- 
tocks, forks, and goads are enumerated. ^^ And, in contrast with 
these implements, swords and spears are said to be lacking. Hence 
the people could have used nothing else than such implements 
and tools as these for weapons in the struggle that followed. 
When we read of "six hundred men, slain with an ox-goad, "^"^ 
this phrase is apt to be more than an empty figure of speech. 
Under such circumstances weapons possessed an inestimable 
value, and we are justified in drawing the conclusion that at no 
other time in the history of the Hebrews did this form of prop- 
erty assume a more important aspect. 

Descriptions of the outfit of the soldier are given in the case of 
Goliath ^^ and of Saul.^^ Monarchical rule, with its standing 
army, naturally gave a strong impetus to the production and 

21 1 Sam. 17:40. 

22 1 Sam. 17:43. "Am I a dog that thou comest against me with staves?" 

23 Gen. 27:3. 

24 Gen. 49:23. 

25 Ex. 4:25; Josh. 5:2-3. 

26 1 Sam. 13:1 ff. 

27 Ibid., r. 22. 

28 Ibid., V. 19. 

29 1 Sam. 13:20-21. 
3n Judg. 3:31. 

31 1 Sam. 17:5-7. 

32 1 Sam. 17:38-39. 



PROPERTY CONCEPTS OF EARLY HEBREWS 39 

specialization of weapons. Conquest of other armies is repre- 
sented as introducing new weapons, such as the war-chariots, of 
which David is said to have captured one thousand from the king 
of Zoba,^^ and, shortly afterwards, seven hundred from the 
Syrians.^* The prophets speak of the old forms of weapons, the 
sword and spear, and mention also the care taken of the shield 
by the practice of "anointing" it ^^ and covering it^^ when not 
in use. 

In like manner we are safe in assuming that implements and 
instruments increased both in number and variety, though we 
do not have any special enumeration of this form of property. 
Practically the only point of interest in the prophetic literature 
is the preference shown for the implements as over against the 
weapons:^'' 

The utter absence of the commodity of dress or apparel in 
primitive society is too familiar to need elaboration.^^ The J 
writer goes a little further, however, and describes the first steps 
in the making of clothes. ''Aprons" of fig leaves sewn together, 
and then "coats of skin" are the Hebrew writer's conceptions of 
the origin and early development of human apparel.^* The tex- 
ture of the garment mentioned later by the same writer **^ is not 
specified, though it may indicate an early date of this notion 
that the word used is not the regular heged but simlah, a word 
which occurs only infrequently in the entire Old Testament. 

Throughout the patriarchal stories clothing is recognized as a 
part of valuable property. It is counted along with precious 
metals in the J account of Abraham 's possessions ; ^^ the dra- 
matic effect of Joseph's "coat of many colors" is familiar.*^ 
This form of valuables figures prominently in the "Babylonish 
mantle" of Achan's theft.*^ 

The C code takes special notice of this form of property. It is 

33 2 Sam. 8:4. 

34 2 Sam. 10:18. 

35 Is. 21:5. 

36 Is. 22:6. 

37 Is. 2:4. 

38 Gen. 2:25. 

39 Gen. 3:7, 21. 

40 Gen. 9:23. 

41 Gen. 24:53. 

42 Gen. 37:3, 23, 31, 32. 

43 Josh. 7:21. 



40 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 

spoken of as being used for a pledge in their system of borrowing 
and the lender is forbidden to keep the garment thus pledged 
over night.** 

This system continued praetieally unchanged during this early 
period, though the law was grossly violated. ' ' They lay themselves 
down upon clothes laid to pledge by every altar, ' ' *^ and ' ' pull 
off the robe with the garment from them that pass by securely. ' ' **' 

While there is no change in tliis property-concept, it is interest- 
ing to note the height to which it has attained. Possession of 
clothes has become identical with wealth and power. Isaiah cites 
the following dialogue : ' ' Thou hast clothing, be thou our ruler, ' ' 
and the answer: "In my house is neither bread nor clothing; 
make me not a ruler of the people. ' ' *^ Thus the growing import- 
ance of apparel in the property-notions of the people is seen. 

The possession of tents is the earliest element of property in 
habitations. We find no provision whatever concerning any 
habitation, in J 's description of the conditions of life of the first 
pair.*^ Later, however, we meet a very orderly explanation of 
the introduction of this commodity, in the statement that Jabal 
' ' was the father of such as dwell in tents. ' ' *" Noah 's abode is a 
tent.^" So also the dwelling of Abraham.^^ It would be interest- 
ing to know in how far, if at all, the practice of the Israelites 
of the conquest — making themselves ' ' dens, caves and strong- 
holds in the mountains," when reduced to the necessity of hid- 
ing ^^ — reflects a primitive mode of life when even tents were 
not a necessity. But the mere silence of the J story of creation, 
in regard to dwellings does not justify any such inference, al- 
though it is very suggestive. 

That the tent was regarded as a definite part of personal prop- 
erty is proved by the J statements of Lot's possessions. "And 
Lot had flocks, and herds, and tents. ' ' ''^ Notice should be taken 
of the fact that in this reference not the singular but the plural 



44 Ex. 22:26, 27. 




45 Am. 2:8. 




46 Mic. 2:8. 




47 Is. 3:6, 7. 




48 Gen. 2:1-24. 




49 Gen. 4:20. 




50 Gen. 9:21. 




51 Gen. 12:8; 18:1-2. 




52.Judg. 6:2; 1 Sam. 13:6; 


1 Ki. 18:4. 


53 Gen. 13:5. 





PROPERTY CONCEPTS OF EARLY HEBREWS 41 

number is used. The eases cited above seem to imply only the 
one common tent,^* while in the later patriarchal stories this com- 
modity has differentiated into the tents of the master, the wives, 
and the servants.^^ This is a big advance beyond the one com- 
mon tent, and has an important bearing upon the development 
of this form of property, since it is a direct result of the in- 
creased number of wives and servants, and it is also an indirect 
testimony to their importance or value. 

The tent as a dwelling is mentioned throughout the Hexateuch, 
and while it figures even as late as the time of the Divided King- 
dom,^° mention is rare, and the prophets have only a few refer- 
ences to this form of property. 

Development of habitations among the Hebrews in the form 
of huts, or houses, we trace first in the stories of the exodus from 
Egypt, where the two side-posts and the lintel of their "houses" 
are mentioned.^" Before this time, however, even in the time of 
Lot, the Canaanites are represented as dwelling in houses. The 
abodes in Sodom are "houses" with "roof" and "door" that 
could be "broken." ^^ It must not be forgotten that the Hebrew 
language, even to a greater extent than the Greek and Roman, 
uses the designation "house" (hmjith) for "household" or "fam- 
ily." Therefore, we find the "house" mentioned in the early 
stories that clearly reflect a tent-dwelling only.^^ 

References to houses as dwellings increase continually from 
the narratives referring to the Egyptian civilization *"' down to 
the close of the period of our study. No specific citations are 
needed to point out the descriptions of the houses in the walled 
cities of Canaan at the time of the conquest, nor the fact that 
these were occupied by the conquerors, in so far as they were 
not razed to the ground, after the people became accustomed to a 
settled life. The building activity during the monarchy is quite 
familiar. While it is safe to assume that the poorer classes had 
to be content to dwell in tents and huts, long after the more well- 
to-do lived in well-made houses, yet early legislation is concerned 

54 See also Gen. 18:6. 

55 Gen. 24:67; 25:27; 31:33. 

56 1 Ki. 12:16. 

57 Ex. 12:7. 

58 Gen. 19:3 ff. 

59 Gen. 19:2-3. 

60 Gen. 39:1 ff. 



42 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 

only with dwellings in the forms of houses. ^^ This may be due 
chiefly to the fact that this legislation was primarily concerned 
with the interest of the wealthy. There is no direct regulation 
of this kind of property, though it is clearly implied that it was 
an object of ownership. 

In the time of the prophets it is different. Amos gives us a 
vivid picture of what property in houses meant in his time. He 
mentions different kinds of houses, showing a high development 
of this form of property : "I will smite the winter house with 
the summer house ; and the houses of ivory shall perish, and the 
great houses shall have an end. ' ' ^- We gain an idea of the cost- 
liness of these structures from such passages as: "Ye have 
built houses of hewn stone but ye shall not dwell in them. ' ' ^^ It 
is interesting to observe that the divine displeasure, manifest in 
the mention of these buildings, depends upon an abused right of 
private property. Two counts are held against the owners of 
these "palaces": the first is that they had been built by "un- 
righteousness, injustice, and oppression ; " *^* the second, that the 
purpose, for Avhich they had been built and made to serve, was 
covetousness, to "store up violence and robbeiy in their pal- 
aces.""^ A number of other objections against the practices of 
the aristocracy owning these houses are brought forth. "They 
covet .... houses and take them away;" and "the wo- 
men of my people ye cast out from their pleasant houses. ' ' ^^ 

Thus, we have a development clearly traced from the common 
tent of the nomad to the privately owned palace of the Hebrew 
nobleman, apparently very much like the modem capitalist. 

The term "stuff," or furniture, in our source is only another 
rendering of the Hebrew word keli. At first it denotes the 
various furniture of the tent, including such items as the house- 
hold gods."^ The simplicity of this equipment can be traced in 
the story cited, though the property-right in these things is 

61 Ex. 20:17; 21:6; 22:7-8. 

62 Am. 3:15. 

63 Am. 5:11. See Spencer, Descriptive Sociology, No. 7, p. 104. 

64 Jer. 22:13 ff. "Woe unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness, and 
his chambers by in.iustice ; that useth his neighbor's service without wagres, and giveth 
him not his hire; that saith, I will build me a wide house and spacious chambers, and 
cutteth him out windows; and it is ceiled with cedar, and painted with vermillion." 
See also verse 17 of this chapter. 

65 Am. 3:10. 

66 Mic. 2:2, 9. 

67 Gen. 31:30 ff. 



PROPERTY CONCEPTS OF EARLY HEBREWS 43 

clearly shown. Such property is also mentioned in the J ac- 
count of the removal of Jacob's family to Egypt. *'® It is also 
conspicuous and the object of strict regulation in the C code.*"^ 
Still, even as late as the time of Elisha the comforts do not appear 
to have been many. A short description of the outfit of a room 
of that time mentions a bed, a table, a seat, and a candlestick.^" 
This was the furniture provided not by the poor but by "a, great 
woman, ' ' who provided it with great care for the ' ' man of God. ' '^^ 
Like other forms of personal property it is highly developed at 
the end of this period when imprecations are uttered by the pro- 
phets against those who ' ' store up violence and robbery in their 
palaces" and ''that lie upon beds of ivory, and stretch them- 
sielves upon their couches. ' ' '^- The same aversion is noticeable 
to this form of property as was expressed by the prophets in the 
case of costly buildings. 

The steps along the line of the development of food-stuff seems 
to fall into two groups, the vegetarian and the meat diet. The 
former was undoubtedly the staple among the common people 
throughout this period. ^^ It figures prominently in the bargain 
between Jacob and Esau, one of the first commercial transactions 
recorded in our sources,'^* and forms an important item in the 
transfer of property under the form of gifts and presents.''^ 
Meat and other animal food, such as milk, butter, and cheese, was 
early used, but chiefly on festal occasions.'^*' Of the development 
of luxurious habits in the use of these products the prophets give 
us ample testimony. '^^ Among the more noteworthy facts which 
they reveal is this that strong drink is one of the articles of 
consumption at the banquets of the aristocracy.'^^ 

Property in animals is represented as very important in the 
early writings. Flocks and herds are second only to human be- 
ings. Abraham is thought of as ' ' very rich in cattle ' ' and Lot 

68 Gen. 45:9 ff. 

69 Ex. 22:7. 

70 2 Ki. 4:10. 
712 Ki. 4:8, 9, 13. 

72 Am. 3:10; 6:4. 

73 Gen. 2:9, 16; 3:17-19. 

74 Gen. 25:34. 

75 Gen. 43:11; 1 Sam. 9:7; 25:18; 30:11-12; 2 Sam. 16:1-2; 17:27-29; 2 Ki. 
4:39; Jer. 7:18 ff. 

76 Gen. 27:6-8; 1 Sam. 28:24-25. 

77 Is. 7:22; 22:13; Am. 6:4. 

78 Is. 5:11, 12, 22; 19:14; Am. 4:1; 6:6. 



44 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 

had ' ' flocks and herds. ' ' ^^ The heirs of Abraham are repre- 
sented in a similar way.*° The price paid by. Jacob for his wives 
was service in tending the flocks of Laban.^^ Increase of the 
flocks under his care was the only capital out of which his wage 
was paid afterwards.^- The interesting breeding experiments, 
undertaken by Jacob,**" shows that cattle was the most important 
of his possessions, aside from his family. The words of the sons 
of Laban, "Jacob hath taken away all that was our fathers"®* 
emphasize the same concept, though the sons undoubtedly mean 
his wives, children, and servants as well as the flocks. Probably 
the most concise expression upon this point, in these early ac- 
counts, is the designation of this sort of property as ' ' riches ' ' in 
the mouths of Rachel and Leah. ' ' For all the riches which God 
hath taken away from our father, that is ours and our chil- 
dren 's. " ^^ It is not without significance that the word for 
' ' riches ' ' here employed, is first used and occurs only here in the 
J and E documents of the Hexateuch,^*' while it is regularly used 
in the later writings. 

All this lends weight to the view of the purely pastoral life of 
the ancient Hebrews expressed in answer to Pharaoh's question 
regarding their occupation: "Thy servants have been keepers 
of cattle from our youth even until now, both we and our fath- 
ers. ' ' '^' In this connection a piece of valuable information is 
afforded us in the reason given why sheep are not mentioned. 
Joseph instructs his brethren to avoid the mention of this animal, 
since "every shepherd is an abomination to the Egyptians. "®® 
From this it is evident that flocks were considered the original 
as well as the most common property in animals. But it is not 
possible from our sources, to determine with certainty the exact 
order of the conceived sequence of the different animals in their 
possession. Sheep, goats, oxen, asses, and camels are frequently 
referred to as making up the flocks and herds. This composition 

79 Gen. 12:16; 13:2, 5: 20:14. 

80 Gen. 25:5; 26:14; 30:43; 32:5. 

81 Gen. 29:18 ff. 
S2 Gen. 30:32. 

83 Gen. 30:37-39. 

84 Gen. 31:1. 

85 Gen. 31:16. 

86 It occurs in another form in a P document, Gen. 30:15. 

87 Gen. 46:34. 

88 Gen. 46:34. 



PROPERTY CONCEPTS OF EARLY HEBREWS 45 

of property seems to have remained practically stable during 
this early period, with the possible exception of the introduction 
of the horse, originally used for the purpose of war,^^ as a beast 
of burden. 

It is interesting to note that the only definite information as to 
the actual size of a man 's wealth comes to us in terms of property 
in animals.^*' Nabal's three thousand sheep and one thousand 
goats — making him a ' ' very great man " — is the most exact 
statement of the size of the fortune of one individual.^^ The J 
enumeration of Jacob's gifts to his brother Esau is also sugges- 
tive. These gifts are : ' ' two hundred she-goats and twenty he- 
goats, two hundred ewes and twenty rams, thirty milch camels 
and their colts, forty kine and ten bulls, twenty she-asses and 
ten foals. ' ' ^- And the Israelites are said to have left Egypt 
with "flocks and herds, even very much cattle." ^^ 

What must be regarded as the really serious fact with respect 
to this form of property from the developmental standpoint, is 
its relative importance in the early stages and its insignificance 
in the later. The value of the produce of the soil, when lacking, ^^ 
is specifically mentioned, but nowhere in the patriarchal stories 
is this produce put alongside of property in animals, or even 
counted as property in the same sense. This observation is still 
more pertinent with regard to real estate. With respect to prop- 
erty in animals, therefore, it is safe to draw the conclusion that 
its importance gave way with the rise of an agricultural economj^ 
and of landed estates. 

The produce of the soil seems to follow, and in part, to sup- 
plant property in animals at the close of this period, while in re- 
gard to the time of its rise it is a later development than orna- 
ments and weapons. While there are indications of an agricul- 
tural activity in the early documents, it is of an incidental nature. 
Isaac reaps "an hundredfold," but this produce never enters 
into the conception or statement of his great wealth.^^ It is not 
even stated of what the crop consisted, and this holds true of the 

89Judg. 1:19; 2 Sam. 8:4; 1 Ki. 10:28-29; 4-26. 

90 Cp. Judg. 8:30, Gideon's "three score and ten sons;" also 2 Sam. 9:10. 

91 1 Sam. 25:2. 

92 Gen. 32:14. Cp. 1 Sam. 30:26. David's gifts of spoil. 

93 Ex. 12:38. 

94 Gen. 42:1, 2; 43:1. 

95 Gen. 26:12, 14. 



46 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 

references to the "tilling of the ground" of the first man and 
woman and also of Cain and Noah.^® In the ease of Noah the 
planting of a vineyard is mentioned, yet it is first in connection 
with the famine in Egypt and Canaan that explicit references 
to this fonn of property are clearly distinguished. While the 
' ' choice fruits, spicery and myrrh, nuts and almonds, ' ' ^'^ are 
used as a medium of exchange, the abundant crops of com in 
Egypt are the first monopolized property by which Joseph is able 
to bring the whole kingdom into vassalage to Pharaoh.^^ The 
definite impression of agriculture is plainly seen in the narrative 
of the exodus, for, though the galling bondage is the most con- 
spicuous element of their lot, yet the Israelites are not only pos- 
sessors of flocks and herds but of produce of the soil as well. 
' ' The people took their dough before it was leavened, the knead- 
ing troughs being bound up in their clothes upon their should- 
ers. ' ' ^^ How far this reference reflects the tradition of actual 
experiences of the Hebrews in Egypt and how far their later 
experiences as settled agriculturists in Canaan, scholars are 
unable as yet to determine with certainty. 

The report of the spies deals only with the fruit of the land.^°° 
That the rise of Hebrew agriculture in Canaan was gradual is 
evident from the nature of the conquest. At the compilation 
of the C code the ownership of the produce of the field and the 
vineyard is not only recognized but protected by actual legisla- 
tion. " If a man shall cause a field or vineyard to be eaten, and 
shall let his beast loose, and it feed on another man's field, of the 
best of his own field and of the best of his own vineyard shall 
he make restitution. ^°^ So also, if fire destroys a man's "shock 
of corn, and standing corn,'' the man kindling the fire is held 
responsible for its value. ^°^ 

With the increase of population, cultivation of the soil natur- 
ally increased a.nd its produce grew in value, until it eventu- 
ally became valuable. This is clearly set forth by the prophet 
Amos. "Your treading is upon the poor, and ye take from him 

96 Gen. 2:5 ff . ; 4:3; 9:20. 

97 Gen. 43:11. 

98 Gen. 41:47 ff. 

99 Ex. 12:34, 39. 

100 Num. 13:18-33. 

101 Ex. 22 :5. 

102 Ex. 22:6. 



PROPERTY CONCEPTS OF EARLY HEBREWS 47 

burdens of wheat. ' ' ^°^ Amos even gives us information concern- 
ing men, who saw the advantage of a "corner in wheat" very 
much in the modern sense. The prophet's words touching this 
phase of commercial life of the times — are as follows : ' ' Hear 
this, ye that would sw^allow up the needy, and cause the poor 
of the land to fail, saying, When will the new moon be gone, 
that we may sell grain? and the sabbath that we may set forth 
wheat . . . that we may buy the poor for silver and the 
needy for a pair of shoes, and sell the refuse of the wheat?" "* 
Thus we see a concept of property in the produce of the soil 
which is about as highly developed as it can be, and which is 
totally different from the early notion of a purely pastoral life, 
in which this produce plays no part in the conception of a man 's 
possession. 

An interesting phase of this changed notion is the contrast 
afforded between the ideals of these two different occupations. 
To the J writer, the representative of agriculture is the fratricide 
Cain, and Abel the ' ' keeper of sheep ' ' is the innocent victim ; ^*°^ 
while to the mind of the prophets, the coming millenium is desig- 
nated by ' ' swords beaten into plowsbares, and spears into prun- 
ing-hooks," ^^'^ and "they shall sit every man under his vine and 
under his fig-tree. ' ' ^"^ From this it is evident that agriculture 
as an ideal occupation has taken the place of the earlier pastoral 
ideal. 



103 Am. 5:11. 

104 Am. 8:4-6. 

105 This story probably reflected the attitude of a. period antecedent to that of the 
writer, who probably was living in the midst of a civilization in which property in 
land, although dominant, was comparativelj recent in its introduction, and he reacted 
against it. 

106 Is. 2:4. Mic. 4:3. 

107 Mic. 4:4. 



CHAPTER V 
REAL PROPERTY 

The absence of real property in the earliest J and E records, 
is one of the striking facts that meet us in our study. The C 
code itself, though it clearly reflects a settled and agricultural 
mode of life, is far from explicit as to the system of land owner- 
ship that obtained. It will be seen later that the only safe in- 
ference from the facts is that the ' ' community system ' ' of land- 
ownership prevailed, as indicated by Fenton in his Early Hebrew 
Life. Fortunately, the prophets give us a clear insight into the 
general principles that governed the possession of real property 
before the exile. But leading up to this late principle of private 
ownership, we are able to trace the institution of property of 
real estate from its very beginnings, so far as it is reflected in the 
traditional notions of the people, to its later transformation in 
accordance with the changing economic and social conditions. 

The notion of an exclusively pastoral, and, indeed, a nomadic 
ancestry, obtained among the early writers, as was noted in 
the preceding chapter. It is in their documents, therefore, we 
must look for the first glimmerings of the concepts of landed 
property. There is no indication that Abraham was thought of 
as engaged in agrarian pursuits. He is portrayed as a true 
nomad, or Bedouin sheik. We are even treated to a definite 
conception of absolutely free land, to be had for the mere occu- 
pancy: "Is not the whole land before thee," are the words of 
Abraham to his nephew, and of the "well watered" region, "Lot 
chose him all the plain of Jordan. ' ' ^ The divine promises, given 
to Abraham at this period, reveal a conception of the land in the 
sense of country for the purpose of a tribal possession, and are 
strictly in keeping with the notion of free land. 

Scarcely any doubt can be entertained as to the genuine- 
ness of these lingering reminiscences of actual nomadic exper- 
iences in the obscure past of the people. They cannot be re- 

1 Gen. 13:9, 11. 



PROPERTY CONCEPTS OF EARLY HEBREWS 49 

flections of conditions existing at the time of the writer; indeed, 
that the actual condition of free land was present at this time 
is impossible in view of the rich civilization of the Canaanites 
depicted in our sources as obtaining at the time of the patriarchs 
and testified to by the Tel-El- Amarna tablets.^ 

While the notion of free land runs through the description 
of the lives of the other patriarchs as well, important observa- 
tions are made as to their mode of life, that are of great value 
to our study. Isaac pursues the same nomadic habits as his 
father, but we read of him that "Isaac sowed in that land 
[Gerar] and found in the same year an hundred fold. "^ The 
J narrator to whom we owe this interesting notice, gives us in 
the same connection an interesting account of what he conceives 
to be the most primitive of all forms of real property among the 
Hebrews, namely, the ownership of wells.* This is observed 
and admirably treated by the late W. R. Smith in explanation 
of certain religious phenomena of the people. "Property in 
water is older and more important than property in land. In 
nomadic Arabia there is no property, strictly so called, in desert 
pastures, but certain families or tribes hold the watering-places 
without which the right of pasture is useless. Or, again, if a 
man digs a well he has a preferential right to water his camels at 
it before other camels are admitted ; and he has an absolute right 
to prevent others from using the water for agricultural purposes 
unless they buy it from him. ' ' ^ This writer even distinguishes 
between private and joint ownership in this kind of property, 
citing Judg. 1 :15, in support of the former, and Gen. 29 :8, in 
support of the latter form of ownership.*' To Dr. Smith it is 
in reality only the water that counts in the matter of ownership 
and in that case its bearing upon the matter in hand would be 
less apparent. It is impossible, however, to escape the impres- 
sion of the emphasis laid upon the labor expended in the digging 
of these wells as described in the J narrative. While the wat«r 
naturally was the object sought, still the location and the labor 
spent in obtaining it are the two chief elements of value in the 
elucidation of the rise of landed or real property. That these 

2 See also Paton, The e^rly history of Syria and Palestine. 

3 Gen. 26:12. 

4 Gen. 26:18-32. 

5 Religion of the Semites, p. 1 04. 

6 IMd., p. 105, footnote. 



50 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 

elements became important we have proofs in the C code : " If a 
man shall open a pit, or if a man shall dig a pit and not cover 
it, and an ox or an ass fall therein, the owner of the pit shall 
make it good. ' ' '' That the land rather than the water is the 
most effective item in this property right is beyond question. 

Aside from this incipient form of real property we have an- 
other reference to a sporadic agricultural activity during the 
pastoral period, that forais the real basis for actual ownership 
in land for agricultural purposes. The practice attributed to 
Isaac of sowing and reaping on soil that was abandoned directly 
afterwards is conceived as increasing later on. "Behold, we 
were binding sheaves in the field, ' ' are the words by which Joseph 
is represented as describing his dream to his brethren.® No 
great amount of psychology is needed to interpret the signifi- 
cance of such a sentence with respect to the notion of a growing 
agricultural activity. 

A step further is taken in the E document, in the description 
of Jacob 's transaction at Shechem. This reflects a primitive and 
elementary yet clear notion of landed values. ' ' And Jacob came 
, . . to the city of Shechem, . . . and encamped before 
the city. And he bought the parcel of ground where he had 
spread his tent . . . for a hundred pieces of money [kesi- 
tah] . " ** The simple manner of statement, the important loca- 
tion, the limited extent, and the moderate price tend to render 
this passage very instructive concerning the inception of landed 
property-values among the Hebrews. 

That the idea of landed property in the mind of the J writer 
is highly developed is clearly seen. The story of creation by 
this writer reflects the same view. Man's original and primary 
purpose was to "till the ground;" an object assigned to him, as 
J conceives it, even before his creation ; apparently J believes it 
to be the immediate purpose of his existence.^" A garden is con- 
ceived as literally "planted" by Yahweh, and into it man was 
put, not for possession, indeed, as the subsequent story of the 
"fall" shows, (where this point of actual authority based upon 
the principle of the property right is interestingly developed) 

7 Ex. 21:33. 

8 Gen. 37:7. 

9 Gen. 33:18-19. 

10 Gen. 2:5. 



PROPERTY CONCEPTS OF EARLY HEBREWS 51 

but "to dress and to keep it."^^ The thought has been ex- 
pressed that the temptation itself represents "the awakening 
instincts of ownership. " ^^ 

The J stoiy of the fratricide places the two functions of pas- 
toral and agricultural activities side by side. "Abel was a 
keeper of sheep and Cain was a tiller of the ground. ' ' ^^ The 
story itself is full of significance according to the Jewish folk- 
lore expressed in the Agadah. Here the story of Cain and Abel 
is viewed as typical of the fierce economic struggle between man 
and man with its brutal theory of the survival of the strongest.^* 

Clearer evidence of the rise of real property is afforded in the 
later J records. The descriptions of the famine in Egypt and 
of the "high finance" of Joseph leave but very little doubt of 
J's notion upon this point. Joseph gathered up the money, the 
cattle and the people, but one item wasi still available, according 
to this writer, namely, the land. The people are represented 
as saying : ' ' Our money is all spent ; and the herds of cattle 
are my lord's; there is nought left . . . but our bodies and 
our lands. "^^ The principles involved in the transaction are 
clearly conceived and plainly stated : "So Joseph bought all the 
land for Pharaoh ; for the Egyptians sold every man his field, 
. . . and the land became Pharaoh 's. ' ' ^® Notice is made 
of the exception of the land of the priests, to which Pharaoh did 
not acquire the title.^^ The nature of the title which he did 
acquire is of a truly feudal character. The former owners are 
permitted to hold it in fief, and are even provided with the neces- 
sary seed, but one-fifth of the crops were to accrue to the benefit 
of Pharaoh, the real owner of the land.^^ 

The description of this transaction on a large scale is so vivid 

11 Gen. 2:15. 

12 Matheson, Representative men of the Bible, p. 33. The frequent references to 
the land in the early patriarchal records, can not be made to contribute a great deal 
towards the elucidation of landed property concepts, since these references convey 
more of the notion of a divine than of human right of ownership. The only clue that 
we might glean from these passages would be that they show a communal rather than 
an individual right to land in so far as the promises were made to the entire posterity 
of the patriarchs. 

13 Gen. 4:2. 

14 Rosenberg, Arena, Vol. 28, p. 37. 

15 Gen. 47:18. 

16 Gen. 47:20. 

17 Gen. 47:22. 

18 Gen. 47:26. 



52 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 

and realistic that one is led to believe that the story is of a 
rather late origin, and was written at a time when the concept 
of landed property had made considerable progress under the 
monarchical regime, and before the abuses of despotism were 
deeply felt. At any rate, the feudal foi*m of tenure is the form 
substituted by this transaction for the communal possession, 
which is clearly implied as the original mode of ownership in 
this narrative. The changes thus described as taking place in 
Egypt within a few years are undoubtedly indicative of the 
gradual and slow changes in the concept of landed property 
that took place among the Hebrews on Palestinian soil. 

As we proceed in the narratives references to this form of 
property become more frequent and more definite. Thus, we 
have the following divine charge to Joshua: ''Thou art old 
. . . and there remaineth yet very much land to be possessed. 
Now therefore divide this land for an inheritance."^^ 

Sufficient evidence has been adduced to show that the J and E 
documents, while written from the standpoint of a developed 
concept of landed property, clearly reflect the gradual develop- 
ment of the same in the order stated. It need scarcely be point- 
ed out that the possession of cities, towns, and villages plays a 
larger part in the early stage of the conquest than the land 
itself.-° 

Indications of real property in the codes have already been 
cited as implying a settled and agricultural life. Too much 
importance can not be ascribed to the fact that while these codes 
regulate in minute detail the property rights in men, animals, 
money, and other stuff, and even in the produce of the field or 
vineyard, still the field itself, or the soil as an object of owner- 
ship and therefore subject to regulation, is not mentioned. 
Many things can be inferred from this fact, but this one point is 
established, that whatever form of real property obtained, the 
need of regulation of one man 's right to the land as over against 
another's, had not yet demanded the legislator's attention. To- 
tally different is the condition as depicted by the prophets and 
in the legislation of the D code,^^ in which this question of the 
ownership of land plays an important part. The only possible 

19 Josb. 13:7. 

20 Num. 21:25; 32:39-42; Josh. 6:20; 8:19 ff. 

21 Dt. 19:14. 



PROPERTY CONCEPTS OF EARLY HEBREWS 53 

explanation of the initial form of tenure is the communal form 
of ownership, with which all students of English land tenure 
are familiar. 

In the interim the development of the principle of real prop- 
erty is well described. Measurement of the land meets us in the 
first book of Samuel.-- That this is one of the best indications 
of the acknowledged pecuniary value of the soil, as such, scarcely 
needs pointing out. With the monarchy established landed prop- 
erty becomes more of a private nature. "Will the son of Jesse 
give every one of you fields and vineyards ? ' ' -^ is the question of 
King Saul, showing the headway made by feudal practices. 
Cities are likewise given away as gifts.^* David announces that 
he has delivered over the possession of Saul to his predecessor's 
son, and it is quite clear that this possession consisted of land 
since the servant of Saul's son is instructed to "till the land and 
bring in the fruits. " ^^ A later reference to the same property 
makes this supposition more certain. The servant of the son of 
Saul, conspiring to gain possession of the property himself, is at 
first successful and gets it all, but later, when this servant's per- 
fidy is exposed, the annoyed king exclaims: "Why speakest 
thou any more of thy matters'? I have said, Thou and Ziba di- 
vide the land."2« 

It is needless to cite further the less important cases. The out- 
standing illustration of the extent to which the practice of royal 
usurpation of the established communal property-rights in land 
was carried is the crime of King Ahab in getting possession of 
Naboth's vineyard.^'' This account reveals the fact that there 
was an established system of family ownership of land, sufficient- 
ly strong to baffle even the king in his attempt to lay hold of a 
part of it that belonged to his subject.^^ How serious this viola- 
tion of the family right to landed property is considered by the 
recorder is shown in the curse pronounced upon King Ahab and 
his wicked queen,^^ which is described as literally fulfilled.^" 

22 14:14; also Is. 5:10. 

23 1 Sam. 22:7. 

24 1 Sam. 27:6; 1 Ki. 9:16. 

25 2 Sam. 9:9-10. 

26 2 Sam. 19:29. 

27 1 Ki. 21:1-16. 

28 See Fenton's Early Hebrew life, pp. 32 ff. 

29 1 Ki. 21:19, 32-38. 

30 2 Ki. 9:24 ff. Cjj. McCurdy, op. cit., Vol. 2, pp. 200 ff. 



54 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 

The testimony of the prophets that this abuse and the rise of 
private ownerehip of land became rampant among the wealthy 
aristocracy, is clear and concise. ''And they covet fields and 
take them by violence ; and houses and take them away : so they 
oppress a man and his house, even a man and his heritage. "^^ 
In clarion tones that leave no room for uncertainty, the prophet 
Isaiah refers to the same fact. "Woe unto them that join house 
to house, that lay field to field, till there be no place, that they 
may be placed alone in the midst of the earth. ' ' ^^ Such an ut- 
terance proves that family rights, formerly considered sacred 
and inviolable, were ruthlessly set aside as the concept of private 
property became more and more definite. 

While this is indicative of the change in general, we have a 
still more concise statement of the details in the trade of landed 
property by the prophet Jeremiah. He describes minutely not 
only the actual purchase of a piece of land, but gives us also in 
this connection the first description of a " bill of sale ' ' occurring 
in the Bible. ' ' And I bought the field of Hanameel .... 
and weighed him the money, even seventeen shekels of silver. 
And I subscribed the evidences and sealed it, and took witnesses, 
and weighed him the money in the balances. So I took the evi- 
dence of the purchase, both that which was sealed according to 
law and custom, and that which was open. ' ' ^^ 

In no other kind of property is the development so marked as 
in the conception of real propert.Y. There is a wide difference 
between a purely pastoral view of the land in patriarchal times 
and the concept reflected in the C code. And then there is great 
progress from the time of the compilation of this code, altogether 
silent upon this subject, up to the time when the question of the 
right to landed property had become an issue of national im- 
portance. Were the forces that brought about this development 
fully known, we should have the key wherewith to unlock prac- 
tically all the great changes in the history of the Hebrew People. 



31 Mic. 2:2. 

32 Is. 5:8. 

33 Jer. 32:9-11. 



CHAPTER VI 

SPECIAL CONCEPTS 

Inheritance does not appear to have been as definite and con- 
crete a concept as is generally supposed. That Dammasek Elie- 
zer is the heir of Abraham seems to point to Abraham's good 
will, fully as much as to a long established custom of the slave 's 
right to inherit.^ The sequel of this J and E account of the 
earliest transfer of property, appears to give a wide latitude to 
the master's pleasure. The right of the first-bom is one of the 
best attested facts, and yet even this right is not an ironclad 
rule. Ishmael is the first-born of Abraham, but at the birth of 
Isaac the right of inheritance is divided between the two.^ And 
it is fully within the power of the patriarch to "hearken unto 
the voice" of the chief wife, and to expel the first-born.^ The 
master's right over the disposition of his property at will is 
rather emphatically expressed in the brief observation, "and 
Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac, " * an expression, it will 
be noted, utterly irrelevant, had this power of the master to dis- 
pose of his property at will not existed. In point of fact, ac- 
cording to the patriarchal stories not one of the first-bom sons of 
the patriarchs was the chief heir of his father's property. The 
most prominent example of the right of the first-born is the ac- 
count of the sale of this right by Esau to his brother Jacob.^ 
And in spite of the sale it required the paternal blessing to be of 
any avail.® Jacob likewise gives the precedence not to the first- 
born, whose birthright he fully recognizes, but to the fourth son.'^ 
Hence the statement that parental authority scarcely existed in 

1 Gen. 15 :2, 3. Cp. Underwood, Distribution of ownership, p. 26. 

2 Gen. 21:10. 

3 Gen. 21:11. Since descent depended on the master's property-right in the 
mother, there is no more difference between Abraham's sons than Jacob's sons. 

4 Gen. 25:5. 

5 Gen. 25:29 ff. 

6 Gen. 27:12. 

7 Gen. 49:3, 8. 



56 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 

Arabic society, does not obtain in early Hebrew life in the 
desert.^ 

It is not merely in the early stages that we find the "patria 
potestas" extended to inheritance. We meet the same fact in 
the period of the established monarchy. The ease of Solomon's 
succession to the throne follows the same principles set forth in 
Isaac's inheriting the wealth of Abraham.^ It is quite remark- 
able that the C code is silent as to this apparently important 
matter of inheritance. The inference is analogous to the case of 
the system of landed property. So long as property was more 
personal in its nature, and was held more or less in common, it is 
reasonable to expect less clearly defined laws of inheritance than 
after real property has become an object of private ownership. 

That this is the development among the Hebrews we can easily 
trace in the prophetic writings. The most conspicuous example 
is the violent indignation and the dreadful curse pronounced 
upon King Ahab for violating the right of inherited property : 
' ' Jehovah forbid it me, that I should give the inheritance of my 
fathers unto thee. " ^^ In the view of the prophet this crime as- 
sumes an importance of a national character, and involves the de- 
struction of the dynasty. But it is to be remembered that the 
object of inheritance, in the case cited, was family property in 
land not private or personal property. That this limitation of 
the rights of inheritance increased we have evidence in the later 
prophets. The terrible oppression by the aristocracy is perpe- 
trated against "a man and his house, even a man and his her- 
itage." ^^ But the best testimony to the progressive development 
of this concept is the legislation of Deuteronomy, where the mas- 
ter's power to bequeath his property is definitely restricted and 
regulated.^" The parallel development with landed property is 
obvious. 

Property can not inherit property; hence daughters were ex- 
cluded from the privilege of inheritance, and we have several 
cases to show that \^dves were inherited along with other prop- 
erty.^^ No development is discernible during the early period. 

8 Smith., Kinship and ynarriage, p. 68. 

9 1 Ki. 1:11-13. 

10 1 Ki. 21 :3. 

11 Mic. 2:2. 

12 Dt. 21:15-17. 

13 Gen. 49:3 ff . ; 35:22; 2 Sam 3:7 ff., 12 : 8 ; 16:21 ff. ; 1 Ki. 2:13 ff. 



PROPERTY CONCEPTS OF EARLY HEBREWS 57 

The early divine ownership, reflected in the patriarchal promises, 
is by the prophets expressed as a divine right of inheritance." 

Borrowing and lending, and a system of pledges and damages 
are mentioned in our sources. The first sanction of these f onns 
of economic activity occurs in connection with the exodus where 
the people are instructed to "ask" of their neighbors costly 
things and thus "spoil" the Egyptians.^^ 

In the C code borrowing receives minute regulation, showing 
that it was extensively practiced and in such a way as to need 
regulation. Borrowed animals must be compensated for, if they 
are injured or die in the hands of the borrower, unless they be 
hired and the oW-ner is with them.^® The lender of money is for- 
bidden to be to the borrower "as a creditor. ' ' ^^ Goods held in 
trust could be required by the owner if missing, but an ordeal 
that turned out favorably to the holder exempted him from res- 
titution when there was no witness to prove his guilt. ^^ Another 
rule is shown by the oath whereby the holder of a beast may rid 
himself of responsibility, if the animal "die, be hurt, or driven 
away" in secret, but if it be stolen he is liable for its value. If 
torn in pieces he is guiltless.^'' 

In the monarchy men were being sold for debt.-" By the time 
of the prophets the custom of taking usury had grown up.^^ 
And in Deuteronomy usury is specifically forbidden if the bor- 
rower is a Hebrew, but sanctioned if practiced upon a f oreigner.^^ 

A pledge seems to have been the common mode of indicating 
a debt and of securing repayment. Valuable light upon this 
practice is afforded by thie fact that the only pledge mentioned 
in the early documents is the only garment a man has and in 
which he sleeps.^^ This practically proves that it was only the 
direst necessity that drove a man to borrow and that no system 
of credit in our modem sense of the term existed at that time; 
credit was in its incipient and elementary stage. Its complete 

14 Jer. 12:7-10. 

15 Ex. 3:22. 

16 Ex. 22:14-15. 

17 Ex. 23:25. 

18 Ex. 22:7-9 

19 Ex. 22:10-13. 

20 2 Ki. 4:1. 

21 Is. 24:2; Jer. 15:10. 

22 Dt. 23:19-20. 

23 Ex. 22:25-27. 



58 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 

development occurs in the latter part of the early period. The 
pledge is still in vogue in the latest of our sources, side by side 
with the practice of usury, which undoubtedly was one of the 
many ways in which the wealthy "ground the faces of the 
poor," and gathered the "spoil of the poor'' into their palaces.^* 
To this practice of redemption of pledges, the recurring phrase of 
Amos, "selling the poor for a pair of shoes," undoubtedly re- 
fers.^^ For in this same connection occurs the description of 
how "they lay themselves down, upon clothes laid to pledge by 
every altar. ' ' ^^ Though not mentioned in particular, it must 
have played as large a part in the systematic oppression of the 
poor and needy as the extortion of usury, for we find in the D 
code a close regulation of this system of pledges, which shows a 
high degree of development.^^ 

Damages are exacted during this early period in the following 
cases : loss of time, cost of healing a personal injury, bodily harm 
to a pregnant woman, and the case when an ox gored another 
person than its owner or gored some one's else beast.-' In case 
of theft, damages varying from the reimbursement of the value 
up to restitution five-fold is commanded. In case of poverty the 
thief is to be sold into slavery ; and in case of burglary the pen- 
alty of death could be inflicted by the owner of the house, if he 
killed the intruder before the sun was risen.^^ 

That the system of damages increased in severity under the 
financial oppression of the rich is indirectly attested by the gen- 
eral condemnation by the prophets of the practices of the ar- 
istocracy ; and indeed, not only of their inordinate greed but of 
their very possession of concentrated wealth itself, a condemna- 
tion which pervades all the prophetic writings at the close of the 
early period. 

The concept of trade or commerce does not meet us in the early 
documents. All that we meet in these are a few scattered refer- 
ences to personal barter and exchange, reflecting almost all the 
stages through which the primitive evolution of money and trade 
passed. One of the first "financial" transactions is rather in- 

24 Is. 3:14-15. 

25 Am. 2:6. 

26 Am. 2:8. 

27 Dt. 24:6, 10-13, 17. 

28 Ex. 21:19, 22-36. 

29 Ex. 22:1-8. 



PROPERTY CONCEPTS OF EARLY HEBREWS 59 

teresting. The commodity that changed hands was a birthright, 
and the price paid for it was a * ' pottage of lentils. ' ' ^° The pur- 
chase of Laban's daughters for the price of labor has frequently- 
met us in our study. Jacob 's purchase of the ' ' parcel of ground 
where he had spread his tent,'' is done by means of a medium 
called kesitah, a term that means ''lamb." ^^ While it is a dis- 
puted point if animals really were a medium of exchange at that 
time, we have a specific statement that a kid is the purchasing 
medium of a harlot's favor.^^ The stories of Joseph reflect de- 
veloped trade in which silver is the circulating medium. 

The C code takes the trade in men as a matter of course ; ^^ so 
also trade in animals.^"* It is somewhat peculiar that so far as 
the selling and buying of things is concerned the C code has no 
regulations. 

By the time of the prophets, however, the practices of the 
trader are noticed. Hosea speaks of the "merchant" and in- 
veighs against him for ''using balances of deceit" ^^ and for pro- 
curing "riches" and "substance."^® False weights and meas- 
ures, violence and robbery, are the characteristics of the profit- 
making trader of the latter part of the early period.^^ Primitive 
buying and selling had developed into a definite system, appar- 
ently unregulated and held in the utter contempt in which trade 
and all its ways were held by the ancients. The Hebrew's la- 
tent commercial capacity was asserting itself, but it received very 
meagre appreciation in our period. 

We find an instrument of sale described first in Jeremiah. At 
the close of the previous chapter this was noticed. It reveals a 
development in the methods of commercial transactions which is 
in strong contrast with the simple practices set forth in the early 
documents. 

It may seem somewhat startling to many that the notion of 
spoil has one of the richest terminologies in the entire Hebrew 
Scriptures. Young, in his concordance, distinguishes not less 

30 Gen. 25:29-34. This is the first occurrence, in our sources, of the word makar, 
which means "to sell." 

31 See Encyclopedia Biblica, s. v. "Kesitah" for the best explanation. 

32 Gen. 38:17, 20, 23. 

33 Ex. 21:2, 7, 8, 16. 

34 Ex. 21:34-36; 22:1, 4, 7. 
35Hos. 12:7. 

36 Hos. 12:8. 

37 Am. 8:4-6; Mic. 6:10-12. 



60 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 

than forty-three of these designations by which variations of this 
one idea of spoil are expressed. If language is ' ' fossil history, ' ' 
as Trench maintains,^* no argument is needed to convince us that 
this mode of acquisition of property is a most important method 
of gaining possession of property. It does not surprise us, there- 
fore, to find that ' ' might versus right ' ' is the principle practiced 
in the early part of this period with reference to both Hebrew 
and foreigner, and with respect to the latter throughout the en- 
tire preexilic history. From what was said in regard to captives, 
this is indeed a necessary consequence. Evidence is not far to 
seek. In the two oldest codes these sentiments are the funda- 
mental and prevailing elements.^'' Nor are instances, even from 
the apparently idyllic pastoral period lacking in this respect. 
Abraham's expulsion of his first-born son was at bottom justified 
by this principle. So also Jacob 's deception of his old father *'' 
and his profitable breeding experiment '^^ are mentioned mth tacit 
approval. 

The ideal character of Isaac himself as described by the J 
writer portrays the elements of this importance of power as well 
as the instances cited above.'*^^ While the sons of Jacob are con- 
demned because of exercising the right of spoil against the She- 
chemites, it is not because they did not have the right to do what 
they did, but because Jacob feared that he might not be strong 
enough to continue this policy.*^ This is the reason why their 
"wrath" and "anger" are cursed, while Jacob himself prides 
himself upon possessing spoil taken "out of the hand of the 
Amorites with his sword and with his bow. ' ' ** But one of the 
clearest illustrations of this concept is the divine command to 
"spoil the Egyptians," since this points to a conception more 
closely allied with stealing than with the brute force exercised in 
war.*^ 

The subsequent period of the conquest, presents this right of 
spoil in such glaring light that little need be said about it. The 
thirtieth chapter of the first book of Samuel describes the di- 
ss Trench on words, p. 23. 

39 Gen. 49. .Tiidg. 5. 

40 Gen. 27:6 ff. 

41 Gen. 30:37 ff. 

42 Gen. 26:16, 20, 21, 29. 

43 Gen. 34:26, 30-31. 

44 Gen. 48:22. 

45 Ex. 3:22. 



PROPERTY CONCEPTS OF EARLY HEBREWS 61 

vine sanction of this practice in words that leave no doubt as to 
the recognized justice of the principle. Especially the twenty- 
sixth verse is instructive as portraying the perfect legitimacy 
and acceptability of this sort of property as gifts to the elders of 
Israel. No doubt we have here a heightened development of the 
original right of spoil intensified by the exterminating wars. A 
slight modification of this w^arlike concept is witnessed in the 
ideals of the early prophets/'' but how deep this goes may be in- 
ferred from a prophetic passage in which the joy of the dawn of 
millenial Israel is described in terms of the joy men feel ''when 
they divide the spoil. ' ' *^ 

Along with this view of spoil arises the notion of theft. Theft 
is but a subdivision of spoil, and this spoil was at first as legiti- 
mate between the tribes when they fought one another as when 
they fought their common enemies.*^ In this respect we are able 
to trace a development even in the principle of the right to spoil. 
The tracing of the notion of theft will lead us up to it. 

The first theft is mentioned in connection with Jacob's de- 
parture from Laban.^'' Apparently only the thing taken from a 
kinsman is counted as theft. Furthermore, it seems that it is 
only the subordinate or the weaker that is held accountable. 
Laban could take his daughters from Jacob by force,^° but the 
taking of the teraphim from Laban was a theft which, had it 
been discovered, would have brought about the punishment of 
death.^^ The same penalty is indicated elsewhere.^- Still these 
cases are mere conjectures'. The definite ; illustration, which 
brings out this concept in bold relief, is Achan's theft.^^ This 
was indeed a theft of the devoted thing, but it shows a definite 
concept and a working principle operating among the people.^* 

The ideas of spoil, robbery, and theft, must at first have been 
identical, since spoil includes all of these acts. Spoil was pri- 

46 Mic. 4:4. Is. 2:4. 

47 Is. 9:3, 2-7. 

48juclg. 12:4-6; 20:37, 44-49; 1 Sam. 25:13, 18-34; 2 Sam. 12:8; 16:21-23. 

49 Gen. 30:33; 31:19, 32, 39. 

50 Gen. 31:31. 

51 Gen. 31:32. This instance probably shows that the concept of theft sometimes 
arose out of its religious connections. 

52 Gen. 44:9. 

53 Josh. 7:16 ff. 

54 This is in all likelihood the origin of the established regulation of the practice. 
If so, it would follow the development of the property-notion itself, which begins with 
the idea of divine ownership. 



62 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 

mary. Theft came next as a differentiation, chiefly because it 
violated sacred rights of the divinity and then of the kindred 
group.^' This is discernible in the cause of Achan, who was 
punished so severely because he had "troubled" the tribes.^*^ 
How slowly the differentiation worked out we may learn from 
the story of the Danite settlement.^^ Here the act of theft is re- 
garded as legitimate spoil.^® Even the eleven hundred shekels 
stolen by Micah from his mother are theft only as being 
' ' taken, ' ' ^^ and no punishment is imposed. 

The C code furnishes us with further details of this develop- 
ment. Spoil is not mentioned, for by this time it was clearly 
differentiated from theft, and this was done chiefly because theft 
was practiced on kinsmen, while spoil was limited more and more 
to declared enemies. •'^ ' ' Thou shalt not steal, ' ' is the command.*'^ 
As was noted under "Damages," the punishment meted out for 
this offense varied from the penalty of death, if the thief broke 
into the house and was killed in the dark ^^ to the selling into 
slavery, if he was too poor to make restitution : from restitution 
five-fold to the compensation of the actual value. 

"We have now only one more step to trace. This is the protest 
against the practice of spoil where formerly only theft existed, 
that is, between kinsmen. The consciousness of kind has grown 
until the financial oppression of the upper class is viewed as true 
spoil and denounced as such. It is, however, only the ' ' spoiling" 
of the Hebrew that the prophets condemn, not the practice in 
general. The later codes show the effects of this prophetic agita- 
tion by extended legal limitation on the practice of spoiling a 
kinsman.®^ 

The lack of material in our sources with regard to wages is 
strange. No regulation exists in the C code. It is not even men- 
tioned there, hence we must be cautious how we interpret the 
scattered references to wages that purport to be prior to this 

55 No word is translated as "robbery" in either the J or E or D documents; it is 
to be found only twice in P throughout the entire Hexateuch of the English author- 
ized version. 

56 Josh. 7:35. 

5T Judg. 17:1-13: 18:1 ff. 
58 Judg. 18:18-25. 
59Judg. 17:2. 

60 Mic. 2 :8. 

61 Ex. 20:15. 

62 Ex. 22:2-3. 

63 Dt. 23:19. 



PROPERTY CONCEPTS OF EARLY HEBREWS 63 

code. It is hardly possible that a wage-earning class could have 
existed and yet not a word of regulation be found concerning 
such a class. This is emphasized by the fact that the prominent 
place of legislation in the C code is actually given to the regula- 
tion of the rights in human property. A communistic system 
of land-holding must have been in vogue that divided the popula- 
tion into two classes, freemen and slaves. When the sturdy yeo- 
man disappeared before the advancing wave of military, royal, 
and economic oppression, the freeholders were partly reduced to 
servitude and partly became wage-earners. The few existing 
references to wages we find in the haggling between Jacob and 
Laban ^* and between Micah and the Levite,*'^ and the stipula- 
tion of hire for the servants of King Hiram.*''^ 

In the prophetic writings we find references to the hireling." 
The most explicit utterance comes from Jeremiah who exclaims : 
**Woe unto him .... that useth his neighbor's service 
without wages, and giveth him not for his work. ' ' ^^ This does 
not make it clear, however, that these neighbors were a wage- 
earning class, although such is the most probable explanation. 

The Deuteronomic legislation shows the development of this 
practice and regulates it. "Thou shalt not oppress the hired 
servant, that is poor and needy, whether he be of thy brethren, 
or of thy strangers that are in thy land within thy gates ; in his 
day shalt thou give him his hire neither shall the sun go down 
upon it ; lest he cry against thee unto Jehovah, and it be a sin 
unto thee. ""^ 

In the entire category of the Hebrews' concepts of property 
there is no more interesting development than the change in their 
views of wealth. This change involves a shifting from a pos- 
itive to a negative standpoint. Wealth in the sense of capital 
was an unknown concept in the earliest stages, when trade was 
at a minimum. Property in the form of natural goods goes far 
back of this period and may be eternal. Capital in the modern 
sense of the word does not exist : it is inconceivable in a strict 
patriarchate, in which the master is the self-sufficient entity so 

04 Gen. 30:28; 29:15; 31:7, 8, 41. 

65 Juda:. 17:10. 

66 1 Ki. 5:6- 

67 Is. 16:14; 21:16. 
68Jer. 22:13. 

69 Dt. 24:14-15. 



64 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 

far as ownership is concerned.'^'' Differentiated ownership is ab- 
solutely necessary to profit-making capital. 

The patriarchs are viewed as possessors of only natural goods. 
But the modern definition of property as the ' ' extension of per- 
sonality" is traceable in the very terminology of the concept. 
"Abraham was very rich," literally kahed, that is, "heavy." 
In the stories about him wealth is the expression of personal 
worth and divine favor. ^^ This positive attitude does not stop 
with merely natural goods. It is an exceedingly interesting de- 
scription of capital goods that the J writer gives us in the stories 
of Joseph.'^^ Here also the attitude is the same.'^^ Joseph's plan 
is the expression of divine wisdom. The account of the spoiling 
of the Egyptians, as we noticed, describes the success of the 
people in this respect as a distinctive mark of divine favor.'^* 

If we follow this early concept, in its negative aspect, an in- 
structive fact meets us, namely, the idea of poverty, considered 
in the strict sense of the term as a lack of property. This idea 
nowhere finds expression in the early documents. The concept 
of poverty in its earliest form is rather that of one ill-treated and 
generally miserable,'^^ a victim of social distress rather than of 
economic deficiency. 

In the C code we have practically the beginning of the purely 
economic concept of poverty. The three original words used to 
designate the ' ' poor, ' ' ^^ occur for the first time, so far as our 
sources are concerned, in this code with one single exception." 
The importance of this remarkable fact can scarcely be overesti- 
mated. It proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that economic 
conditions had long been in operation, until not only an actual 
economic differentiation had taken place in society, but also that 
the distinction between social distress and economic deficiency 
had begun to crystallize in the consciousness of the people.'^'® In 
other words, the C code represents to us the inception of the no- 

70 See Lafargiie, Evolution of property, p. 1 ff. 

71 Cp. Chap. 1. 

72 Gen. 47:13-26. 

73 Gen. 41:38-39. 

74 Ex. 11:2-3. 

75 Gen. 16:6; 31:50; Judg. 19:24-25. 

76 These words are, ani, dal, ebyon. 

17 Dal occurs once before, Gen. 41:19, but the other terms are introduced after- 
wards. 

78 Ex. 23:11. 



PROPERTY CONCEPTS OF EARLY HEBREWS 65 

tion of wealth as capital goods.' '^ But it is only a beginning ; the 
old notion of poverty as a general disability is still predom- 
inant. ®° 

The general attitude towards wealth reflected in this code is 
rather difficult to determine. The impression is of restrictions 
only in case of the more flagrant abuses, while the theory is a 
sort of laissez fadre, for which, however, the obscurity of the con- 
cept may be largely responsible. On the whole, the attitude is 
favorable to wealth, as was noticed in the regulation for restitu- 
tion and theft, *^ and in the definition of slave. ^^ 

With the rise of the monarchy, militarism, and a landed ar- 
istocracy the attitude toward wealth changes. Traces of this are 
found in the case of Nabal,*^ and in the parable of the prophet 
Nathan.®* Here the concept of poverty is clear and concise, and 
the attitude toward the rich less favorable. To what extent the 
antagonism against oppressive wealth has grow^n is indicated by 
the king's condemnation of his own act, though, of course, un- 
known to himself .^^ 

The attitude of the preexilic prophets, however, comes to us 
almost as a shock. Wealth is practically synonymous with op- 
pression. "The rich men are full of violence," and "treasures 
of wickedness" constitute their possessions, which were accumu- 
lated by "wicked balances and Math the bag of deceitful 
weights. ' ' **^ On nearly every page of the prophetical writings, 
we find evidence that in the mad scramble for wealth humanity 
is trampled under foot and violence runs wild.®^ The most 
striking feature in this concept is the implacable hostility to- 
wards the representatives of wealth, apparently without excep- 
tion, implied throughout these writings. And the vehemence by 
which these sentiments are expressed is such as to make many a 
radical socialist of the present day seem rather moderate. 

This negative attitude towards wealth is the most remarkable 

79 Ex. 22:25. 

80 Ex. 23:3, 6, 7. 

81 Ex. 21:22 ff. ; 22:1 fif. 

82 Ex. 21:21. 

83 1 Sam. 25:2 flP. 

84 2 Sam. 12:1-6. 

85 2 Sam. 12:5-6. 
86Mic. 6:10-12. 

87 Am. 8:4-6; 2:6-8; 3:10; 5:11-12; 6:4-6; Mic. 2:2, 8-9: 3:3, 10-11; 7:2-3; 
Is. 1:15-17; 2:7; 3:14-15; 5:8-12; Jer. 2:34; 7:6; 17:11; Hos. 5:10; 12:7-8. 



66 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 

as well as the most important fact in the concepts of property 
among the early Hebrews, especially because it reached its cli- 
max at the close of this early period which we are studying. 
What an enormous development is manifested in this complete 
change of front from the attitude of the J author, to whom the 
possession of wealth is a distinguishing feature of divine favor 
and personal righteousness, to the diametrically opposite view of 
the preexilie prophets, to whom the possession of wealth is a 
synonym for all that is evil and vile, the essence of wickedness. 
The latter view is the significant characteristic of the writings 
of the Hebrew prophets and makes them unique in the annals of 
antiquity.^^ It may be partly explained on the ground that the 
early prophets were economic consei'vatives, champions of the 
older and simpler economic and social life as against the radical 
changes in social position and economic conditions consequent 
upon the peace and prosperity of the period. 

The immediate result of this development can be traced in the 
Deuteronomic legislation and the final outcome in the closing 
chapters of Hebrew national history. But the ultimate results 
are to be seen in the characteristics which have made the Hebrew 
what he became after his nation ceased to exist, what some have 
considered him ever since, a ' ' money-grabber. ' ' The voice of the 
eighth century prophets made him the ethical and religious voice 
of God to many peoples, even more than a money-lender and 
financier. 



88 The intimate bearing of this development upon present-day problems is seen in 
the intense modern agitation against capitalistic oppression. 



CHAPTER VII 

THE RELATION OF THE CONCEPTS OF PROPERTY TO 
SOCIAL LIFE 

1. The distinction hetween the function of ownership and the 
idea of property 

This distinction must be kept in mind continuall)y if "a crit- 
ical understanding of the idea of property" is to be gained. 
There is not a vestige of a doubt that Morgan was right in think- 
ing that when the searchlight of science had uncovered this 
fundamental concept of property, 'Hhe most remarkable portion 
of the mental history of mankind ' ' would be revealed. 

The fashion of investigators in this field has been to seek the 
origin of the institution of property in the society of animals. 
No distinction whatever is made between the unconscious fact 
and the conscious function. As an apt illustration of this con- 
fusion the views of Letoumeau, a brilliant writer on this subject, 
may be cited.^ To this writer a society of ants represents not 
only the specialized activities of civilized man, such as agricul- 
ture, architecture, cattle-keeping, and slavery, but it even sur- 
passes human society so far that ' ' ants, whilst behaving like men 
have never allowed themselves the abuses of force to which men 
are accustomed. " - To such extremes has this argument been 
carried that one critic calls attention to the fact that these writers 
speak of an institution of property before any society existed.^ 
The difficulty arises from the confusion of the economic function 
and the mental concept, the practical and conceptual elements 
in the institution of property, and serves as a striking example 
of what James calls "the psychologist's fallacy" * as operating 

1 Letoumeau, Property, its origin and development. 

2 Ibid., pp. 12-13, 89. Cp. also Romanes, Animal intelligence, pp. 31-142. 

3 "Sa methode comparative a pour ob,iet de donner au concept de propriety un 
extension si vaste qu'on puisse deja parler de propriete quand il n'y pas de societe." 
L'Anne Sociologique, Vol. 10, p. 446; a review of R. Petrucci's Les origines naturelle 
de la propriete. 

* Psychology, Vol. 1, pp. 196-198. Note two variations of this fallacy pointed out. 



68 , UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 

in the field of sociology, namely, the confusion of the student and 
of the fact under investigation and the assumption of an equal 
degree of consciousness in the two. 

Property as an economic fact can be attributed to the society 
of animals. So that we can talk about an animal "owning" his 
nest and the supply of food he has gathered. But in this sense 
does not the plant "own" the soil into which it has struck its 
roots and from which it draws its sustenance 1 Again, does not 
the sun itself "own" the planets which are compelled to circle 
their endless orbits in obedience to the siui's "economic func- 
tion" of gravity? Property in its purely biological aspect in- 
volves the one as well as the other of these facts, and as a mere 
economic fact it strikes its root far beneath the animal kingdom. 
As a biological function we must trace the origin of property 
from these sources and take into account not only the society of 
animals but man's animal existence in his struggle for survival. 
Biologically, therefore, man "owns" in the same sense as the 
animal "owns" whatever he can get hold of and is able to retain 
until its utilities are exploited to his satisfaction.^ O^vnership 
in this sense is confined to the elements of food-getting and the 
satisfaction of the impulse of sex. We are fairly well assured 
that it was gastric juice rather than brain-phosphor which gave 
the reaction to the mechanical event of private property.*^ The 
sensuous satisfaction of the savage was his best guarantee of 
ownership. Still not all the data in the world on the biological 
function of ownership in this sense are capable of explaining the 
institution of property as we know it. In order to explain this, 
another element, the consciousness of ownership as an abstract 
right, is absolutely essential. 

This element, the consciousness of ownership as an abstract 
right, is uniformly experienced by the members of the entire 
society and sanctioned by it. Here is the question of supreme 
importance: Are the animal and the savage conscious of such 
psychic reflex as a notion of right over the morsel of food or over 
the mate which he has torn from a Aveaker being or an enemy? 
Does he leave it in plain sight depending for its safety upon the 
acknowledged fact that he "owns" it? And further does the 

■'i See KpUt, Homeric Society, p. 3 90. 

G The amfieba shows food-takinsr reactions "only in response to edible substances." 
Washburn, The animal mind, p. 41. 



PROPERTY CONCEPTS OF EARLY HEBREWS 69 

entire group sanction this right so as to punish violations of the 
same? When these questions are answered in the affirmative 
the institution of property can be said to exist, when they must 
be answered in the negative we can not speak of that institution. 
This consciousness of a property-right is nothing else than the 
idea or concept of property. When this is present, the conditions 
above noted are fulfilled. For when such a concept is formed, 
customs supporting it grow up jmri passu with its development 
and these are eventually transformed into law. Hence this con- 
cept or consciousness is the one essential in the institution of 
propertj^ So fundamental is this concept that the witty Linguet 
tells Montesquieu, "L 'esprit des lois, c'est I'esprit de la pro- 
prete." '^ Another scarcely less celebrated writer goes even fur- 
ther when he says: "Where there is no property there is no 
injustice. ' ' ^ We are reminded of the words of a later student in 
this field, ' ' This then is the key to the history of property as an 
institution, — the growth of knowledge. ' ' ^ 

2. The origin of the property-concept is social and rests on taboo. 

Clearly enough this concept, presenting the most difficult prob- 
lems with which the human mind is called upon to grapple, can- 
not be attributed to animal, or to savage society. All that we 
can claim to know about this phenomenon in such a realm is that 
of conscious function. But as the conscious function of mating 
among animals never developed into an "institution of mar- 
riage" in animal society, even so the owning function never de- 
veloped into an institution of property. Individual conscious- 
ness alone, even though it be capable of conceiving the right of 
owning, is inadequate to explain this concept. An individual 
might claim the right, but what would insure the respect for his 
claim as a right ? What would bring about the universal sanc- 
tion ? ^^ For this result we must have something more than in- 
dividual consciousness, we must have a group of individuals with 
a consciousness of kind and also a consciousness of their like- 
mindedness in association. It is precisely at this point where the 
organism, social-eontract-imitation-and suggestion-theories of so- 
ciety break down in the search for the origin of the institution of 

7 Cited by Laf argue. Evolution of property, p. 58. 

8 Locke, Essay on human understanding, Book 4, Ch. 3, Sec. 18. 

9 Jenks, History of politics, p. 100. 

10 Cp. Maine, Ancient law, pp. 243 ff. 



70 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 

property. If they contained all the tnith, individual conscious- 
ness alone would suffice to explain every phase of the facts, but 
they leave out the very important element which alone can ac- 
count for the concept of property, namely, that likemindedness 
which, being neither instinctive nor rational but "formal" or 
traditional in its nature, is based upon unquestioning acceptance 
of customary actions and ideas without discussion, and therefore 
alone explains the universal sanction of the right of property. 
Hence we are forced to commit ourself at the outset to the theory 
of "formal" likemindedness, if we are to obtain any light at all 
upon the origin of this institution. 

Discarding the broad field of genetic psychology, the question 
of origin of the concept of property is narrowed to the precise 
point at which we find the idea of property appearing in the de- 
velopment of this formal likemindedness in human association. 
Fortunately sociology has advanced sufficiently to establish a 
certain order in the rise and development of the ideas involved 
in the different social institutions, whether these be religious, 
economic, or political. This generally accepted order is well 
summarized by Professor Giddings in his "primary, secondary, 
and tertiary traditions. ' ' " To the primary tradition belong the 
initial economic, juridicial, and political notions; to the second- 
ary, the animistic, or personal, and the religious ideas ; and to the 
tertiary traditions belong conceptual thought, metaphysical phil- 
osophy, and science. That these groups of notions overlap and 
interpenetrate each other need not be stated, though the tertiary 
traditions are confined to civilized society. 

Quite naturally the student searching for the origin of prop- 
erty ideas, at once concludes that they are to be found in the pri- 
mary traditions. But this is precisely what we are guarding 
against by the distinction between the function and the concept. 
For these primary traditions, economic, juridical, and political, 
embrace the entire conscious function, irrespective of the mental 
content. Again, the basis of these traditions is force, not right. 
And no amount of force is capable of creating mental structure. 
The primary traditions furnish the soil but not the actual germ 
of the concept of property.^^ 

For this potential idea we must turn to the secondary tradi- 

11 Elements of sociology, p. 147. 

12 See pp. 7-8, footnote.s. 



PROPERTY CONCEPTS OF EARLY HEBREWS 71 

tions. The first notion we meet there is the idea of personality. 
This is the germ of the property-concept. Giddings defines this 
idea as ' ' the sum of man 's beliefs about himself and other beings 
as consisting of body and soul. ' ' ^^ Does it really need argument 
to show that "economics" would be unable to produce an institu- 
tion of property \^dthout the idea of personality ? Probably the 
best definition of property ever given is that, "Property is the 
extension of personality." ^* But we must take a further step. 
In this group of secondary traditions we find the religious ideas. 
Indeed, animism, or the notion of personality, is in its rise always 
of a religious or, if preferred, superstitious, nature. This is the 
vitalizing element in the notion of personality that is ultimately 
responsible for the rise of such a notion in human society as a 
property- right. 

We have only to trace the different steps in the development of 
these religious ideas, so far as known to us, and to establish the 
connection between these ideas and the function of ownership, 
and the theoretical part of our task is done. In this sphere we 
have in rising genetic order fetich- worship, totemism, and the 
taboo. Petichism is the lowest and most primitive of all known 
superstitions, apparently utterly irrational. Totemism is the ad- 
vanced conception of a sacred ancestry, but its principle is found 
in the function of kinship and consanguinity, and sustains only 
remote relation, if any at all, to economic factors. The taboo on 
the other hand, takes definite cognizance of personality, both in 
its protective and prohibitive function arid in its mental content. 
Furthermore it deals explicitly vnih objects of economic value. 
This is positively the first point in the development of the formal 
likemindedness where we can demonstrate the actual presence of 
a concept which beyond all question involves the universal sanc- 
tion. Since this is also precisely the point at which the vital 
connection between economic function and the mental concept 
of unchallenged right is made, the working hypothesis is com- 
plete : Taboo is the first embodiment of the concept of property 
and the origin of the institution of property. Anticipating the 
conclusion from concrete data, the most powerful and conclusive 
proof that can possibly be given for the fundamental truth of 

]'3 Giddings, Elements of sociology, p. 149. 

14 See Underwood's admirable treatment of this subject in his definition of owner- 
ship in Distribution of ownership, pp. 10-15. 



72 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 

this statement is the simple fact that it has remained such to the 
present day. The age-long struggle of society in the rationaliza- 
tion and socialization of the institution of property only reveals 
the dominance of the taboo in the establishment of the property- 
concept in human affairs. 

This is the conclusion drawn from the study of the develop- 
ment of the concepts of property among the Hebrews. It is the 
only rational explanation of the clear and concise ideas of the 
divine property-right, which we found to be the primary as well 
as the dominating principle in the development of the concept of 
property. It also furnishes us with a key to the well-known fact 
that the best proof of its primitivity that we possess in social in- 
stitutions lies in the prevalence and dependence upon ceremonial 
rites and theocratic ideas. The student finds that, in spite of the 
advanced legalism of the Hammurabbic code, enough survivals 
of these ideas are to be found in it to prove the religious origin 
of the concept of property.^^ But probably the best proof of the 
universality of this origin of the concept of property is the con- 
clusion of a student of this same idea among the Romans. Fustel 
de Coulanges in his Ancient city thus sums up the evidences of 
the origin of the property concept among the makers of the mer- 
ciless ' ' Twelve tables " : "In the greater number of primitive 
societies the right of property was establislied by religion ; " ^"^ 
and a^ain : ' ' Religion and not laws first guaranteed the right of 
property. ' ' ^'' 

There are certain supplementary considerations supporting 
the taboo origin of property. If the origin of the institution of 
property is to be found in taboo, what of the apparently opposite 
theories that this institution had its rise in the social practices of 
seizure by force, habitual use, or production ? The answer is that 
these theories instead of contradicting the taboo origin, simply 
pave the way for it and lead up to it as its inevitable consequence, 
because these theories have explored the rise of the primary tra- 
ditions, or the origin of the economic function only. Seizure by 
force is undoubtedly the primary mode of acquiring property. 
But this does not involve any right. Its basis is power versus 

15 See Code of Hammurabi, Paragraphs 131, 132, pertaining to the sacred oath 
and the ordeal. 

16 P. 85. 

17 P. 86. 



PROPERTY CONCEPTS OF EARLY HEBREWS 73 

right, for these two elements are mutually exclusive. It is the 
rise and the recognition on the part of the community of a right 
opposed and superior to power which constitutes the property- 
concept. The phrase ' ' right of the stronger" is a contradiction of 
terms. The property-right is the mental force which established 
the "owner" versus the ''stronger." 

In like manner habitual use alone shows us another phase of 
the original function of ownership which does not need to be 
even a conscious function, much less involve any mental content. 
That the production of a thing should involve the concept of 
ownership can not be seriously entertained, since we are aware 
of a general rule of early society that "those who work cannot 
own and those who own cannot work. ' ' ^^ The property-right 
based upon production is the great ideal of the property concept ; 
its terminus ad qiiem but not its terrmniis a quo. 

These diiferent theories contain more or less truth, however, 
in so far as they answer the question "how," that is, setting 
forth the method of the incipient practice of the function of own- 
ership. The point in which they fall short is that they do not 
tell us the "what" of the concept of property. To answer this 
question we must have animism and the notion of personality. 
And this personality must be acknowledged by the entire com- 
munity with a sacred significance. Then, when these practices 
become pervaded by the superstitious sanction we have the insti- 
tution complete but not before. To use a figure, these practices 
are the material form requiring the breath of the notion of per- 
sonality to make them living institutions. This is precisely what 
we have in the taboo. 

In the writings of the majority of recent students of this phase 
of sociological inquiry we meet a somewhat instinctive perception 
of the intimate relation between the taboo and the notion of prop- 
erty. The differences of opinion appear very wide, ranging from 
the view that the taboo itself is the result of the institution of 
property ^^ to the view that the notion of property is of a very 
recent origin, far removed and even opposed to the original re- 
ligious ideas.^" The point of value in this divergence of opinion 

isVeblen, The he winnings of ownership, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 4, 
p. 360. 

19 Laf argue, Evolution of property, pp. 17 ff. 

20 Smith, Religion of the Semites, pp. 140 S. 



74 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 

is the substantial agreement upon two facts: first, the funda- 
mental importance of the taboo and of the institution of prop- 
erty; and second, the intimate and vital union of the two. In 
these two essentials the most conflicting extremes touch each other 
and fuse into one. Failure to distinguish between function and 
concept is responsible for the divergence. 

The demand at this point of our inquiry naturally would be to 
trace the rise of the mental content of the property-concept to 
its origin in the same way as we have indicated the rise of the 
function of ownership. But this would take us into the heart of 
the problem of the origin of religious ideas,-^ which is obviously 
altogether too far afield. Therefore we are forced to take the 
taboo as the fundamental historical fact for our purposes. Two 
elements are distinguished in this concept, the notion of a magical 
"charge" inherent in things themselves,^^ and then the notion of 
a deity whose will is to be obeyed.-^ The former element plainly 
shows a relation to fetich-worship, while the latter sustains more 
of a relation to the totemistic notions. Instead of viewing these 
two elements as different varieties of the taboo, we will not go far 
wrong if we take them to be logical steps in the development of 
the system of taboo. The view here entertained is that the taboo 
is the outcome of man's innate capacity for superstition, the 
"awe of the unknown," for the expression of which environ- 
mental phenomena can show a series of rising gradations, but for 
the content of which we must posit man's psychic activity.^* 

21 Compare with the familiar theories of Spencer, Miiller, Tiele, Smith, and others, 
the view held by King, who traces the origin of the "religious attitude" to a "con- 
sciousness of value," bearing directly upon the property-concept. Development of 
religion, pp. 44 if. 

22 "At an early period the notion [of taboo] has a magical content: the tabooed 
individual or object is possessed of a certain magical awfulness or sauetity, is per- 
vaded with a dangerous contaminating influence, is charged with a deadly electricity 
which may be automatically set free by physical contact." Webster, "The influence 
of superstition on the evolution of the property-right." American Journal of Soci- 
ology, Vol. 15, p. 795. 

23 "In somewhat advanced states of culture the penalty for breaking the taboo is 
commonly regarded as the vengeance of an outraged deity, who visits with sickness, 
disease or death the guilty individual." Ibid., p. 795. 

24 "Like all questions of the derivation of institutions it is essentially a question 
of folk-psychology, not of mechanical fact." American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 4, 
pp. 354-5. "When these [mental forces] are once developed, they lead an indepen- 
dent existence and constitute a superorganic or psychical factor as distinguished from 
the purely physical or the biological factors." "The Economic Interpretation of His- 
tory," I. A. Loos, Am-erican Economics Association, Series 3, Vol. 3, p. 387. "There 
is no property until foresight begins," Underwood, Distribiition of property, p. 23. 
Cp. James, Psychology, Vol. 1, pp. 8-9, the relation between prevision and mentality. 



PROPERTY CONCEPTS OF EARLY HEBREWS 75 

The taboo, as it is here used, is the developed system in which 
both the magical and the deistic ideas are present. 

3. Application or applicability of the tahoo theory of the origin 
of property to the social conditions of the life of the Hebrews 

The theory of the taboo origin of property is implied in the 
Hebrew property-concept. It is a direct result of the religious 
phase of the social life. Its immediate basis is the consciousness 
of kind. Yahweh reveals himself in the very earliest of the doc- 
uments, that of "the little Book of the Covenant" as an owner, 
speaking in definite terms of proprietary right, "the first- 
born .... are mine." This assertion could not by any 
means be an economic or natural right since the subject is the 
idea existing in the likeminded consciousness of his worship- 
pers.-^ This fact therefore proves to us the social nature of the 
first property-right. But additional proofs of this meet us in 
the forms which the expression of their worship assumed. These 
forms were the conscious articulation of their community life ex- 
pressed in terms of supernatural content. In their worship two 
rites stand out in striking relief. These are the sacrifice and the 
ban or curse. Around these the social life of the people centered. 
It is in connection with these customs that we are able to trace 
the property-notions of the people. It is therefore necessary to 
understand the principle upon which these customs depend. The 
ultimate principle of the customs is readily seen to be the notion 
of holiness attributed to the tribal deity. In this one word 
"holiness" we have summed up the chief mental content around 
which were arranged the ideas involved in their system of re- 
ligious observances. Now, we find that this central idea of holi- 
ness contains exactly the same elements as the taboo. Even more 
than this, in the rules of this holiness we see the actual taboo in 
operation. "We have not only the developed element of a personal 
deity, but we have in the early stories the primary notion of an 
inherent magical content in things themselves. Therefore we are 
forced to draw the conclusion that the two notions of holiness 
and taboo are in the last analysis inseparable or identical.^® Can 

25 Of the reality expressed b\ this idea we are not concerned in this inquiry of a 
psychosocial nature. 

26 "The rules of Semitic holiness show clear marks of their origin in a system of 
taboo. . . It is imxK)Ssible to separate the Semitic doctrine of holiness and un- 
cleanness from the system of taboo." Smith, Religion of thet Semites, pp. 450, 452. 



76 UNIVERSITY OF lOAVA 

a. clearer case of taboo than the fruit of the tree of knowledge of 
good and evil possibly be cited ? And is there in all literature an 
illustration of the breaking of a taboo conceived to involve more 
far-reaching consequences than this one? It played, indeed, a 
striking part in the development of Hebrew ideas, and upon none 
of these does it bear with greater force than upon the concept of 
property. For the "fall of man'' was a breaking of the divine 
right of property expressed by the taboo, and this principle re- 
mains an abiding constant, working itself out in practical life in 
the development traced in the concept of the divine property- 
right. The ceremonies of sacrifice, the curse, and the blood- 
revenge, all depend upon the divine right to which the woi-ship- 
per owes acknowledgment. For all of these were distinctly re- 
ligious duties with specific reference to the deity and hence 
sacred. 

To understand the real meaning of the divine property-right 
we need only call to mind that in the search for the origin of the 
notion of property it is not the things owned which give us the 
clue, but it is the answer to the question, "Who was the first 
owner?" that will take us to our goal, for it is seen at a glance 
that the owner is the exponent of the concept of property. 
Among the Hebrews we find Yahweh the first owner with an ab- 
solute right. The mode of expression of this right was the taboo 
involving the idea of holiness in the two forms we have noticed, 
intrinsic magic and divine will. At first Yahweh 's right was ex- 
ercised onlj^ for his own sake, later this right was utilized by the 
prophets in the favor of the poor and needy. 

The facts \^all be quite clear when we remember that at this 
early period no nice distinctions were held between kindred no- 
tions, such as we have in our text-books of to-day. We are forced 
to realize a sort of nebular chaos in primitive mental life, in 
which superstition suffused every relation with the rays of sanc- 
tity, giving a religious significance to every phase of experience. 
"There was no separation between the spheres of religion and 
ordinary life. Every social act had a reference to the gods as 
well as to man, for the social body was not made up of men only 
but of gods and men. ' ' -^ It is in society thus composed that we 
find the idea that the tribal god was the first real owner. This he 

27 Smith, Religion of the Semites, p. 30. See Ihid., Lecture 2, "The nature of the 
religious community and the relation of the gods to their worshippers," pp. 28 ff. 



PROPERTY CONCEPTS OP EARLY HEBREWS 77 

was because of the universal respect for his taboo.-^ Appeal was 
made to him by means of the oath and the ordeal. He was the 
great executive, whose mandates were carried out by concerted 
action.-*^ 

Here is the basis for the notion of theft which is but the nega- 
tive phase of the property-concept.^" Such religious origin ex- 
plains the universal sanction of the right to own, or the respect 
of property even by those whose self-presei-vation would urge a 
violation of it.^^ This would seem to be the ultimate answer to 
Sir Henry Maine's question as to the creation of this respect,^- 
for in the god-idea we have the most indisputable evidence of the 
consciousness of kind known to early society and as we now have 
seen the property-concept is inseparably bound up with it. 

4. The connection hehveen tJiis idea of a divine owner with the 

things owned and the reciprocal influence of the 

one upon the other. 

This interdependence or reciprocal influence can now be shown 
on a basis of our foregoing analysis. If it be true that ' ' nothing 
could more clearly have been property than articles given by the 
community to its favorite leadere,"^^ we are forced to add, ex- 
cept the articles given by the community to its deity. From the 
standpoint of logic no escape can be found from this conclusion, 
or from the synthesis of the facts of early Hebrew historj^. The 
monumental institution of the well-nigh universal ceremony of 
sacrifice among practically all primitive peoples proves the funda- 
mental nature of the notion of divine ownerehip. We know the 
elaborate system of this institution among the Hebrews well 
enough to preclude the necessity of enlarging upon it.^* Every 

28 Smith, op. cit., p. 456. 

29 Cp. the inscription on the Mesha stone, lines 14-18. 

30 "In the oldest type of society impious acts or breaches of taboo are the only 
offenses treated as crimes; e. g., there is no such crime as theft, but a man can save 
his property by placing it under taboo, when it becomes an act of impiety to touch 
it." Smith, op. cit., p. 163. See also footnote same pag'e. 

31 Cp. Loria, Economic foundations of society, p. 19, footnote. 

32 Ancient law, p. 243. 

33 Giddings, Principles of sociology, p. 242. 

34 With respect to the explanation of the sacrificial theory we are forced to take 
issue with the late W. Robertson Smith whose very refutation of the gift theory of 
sacrifice fairly bristles with facts which prove the powerful influence of ideas of 
property in the sacrificial system. In point of fact, he proves their presence by the 
controlling influence which he ascribes as a veritable "swallowing up" of all earlier 
formulas for the relations of persons and things (Religion of the Semites, p. 391) to 



78 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 

sacrifice is a conclusive acknowledgment of the right which the 
votary voluntarily accords the being to whom it is offered. From 
the offering at the grave of ancestors to the spirits of the dead, 
shown in early animism, to the elaborate sacrificial system of the 
Hebrews, this principle ruled. When this right is absent or un- 
acknowledged, evidently there will be no sacrifice.^^ 

However, Yahweh 's right to the firstborn and to the sacrificial 
animal is not the earliest conception of his right, for the first- 
born child could be redeemed. We see this also in the later mod- 
ification of this right by the eighth century prophets, when this 
idea breaks down. By the biological law which causes the char- 
acteristic latest acquired to be lost first, we are led to believe that 
sacrifice of children to Yahweh was an imposition upon the pre- 
Mosaic religion contributed by the association with peoples who 
practiced it. The terrible guerilla warfare of the conquest and 
the period of the Judges did not tend to create respect for human 
life. The tribes fought each other with the same zeal that they 
fought their common enemies. Established in the land and in 
close contact with the Canaanites, they gradually learned to rec- 
ognize their own identity as a people. In other words, they de- 
veloped a deeper consciousness of kind.^® The very core of this 
was their common worship. This consciousness reacted against 
every practice interfering with the welfare of the people as a 
whole. Sacrifice was questioned as a meritorious rite. The de- 
struction of Hebrew children was summarily condemned. Animal 
sacrifice itself and even the sacrifice of foodstuff is deprecated. 

such an extent that "the introduction of the ideas of property into the relation be- 
tween men and their gods seems to have been one of the most fatal aberrations in the 
development of ancient religion" (p. 395). Had these ideas not been present in the 
system of taboo — this living nexus of nascent ideas — they would not have been able 
immediately upon their appearance to "play a leading part both in religion and social 
life" (p. 390). For a full treatment of Professor Smith's view respecting this prob- 
lem, see Lectures 4, p. 140; 11, p. 388; and "Additional Note B," p. 446, in the 
work cited. 

35 Cp. Wundt's chapter on "Das Tabu imd der Ursprung der Siihnezeremonie," 
in his Vdlkerpaycholocrie, Mythus, und Religion, Zweiter Band, Zweiter Teil, pp. 300- 
364. 

3;6 A picture of such a process in a religious community is afforded in Dr. Gillin's 
sociological interpretation of the Dunkers. Aside from the absence of warfare the 
principles here outlined offer many parallels to what the development among the 
Hebrews inevitably must have been. "Proximity emphasized unlikeness that distance 
hid from view. But becoming aware of the fact that they were unlike the other 
social elements, the Dunkers became conscious of a social likeness among themselves. 
This contact with others, thus, developed a consciousness of kind." The Dunkers, 
p. 108. Note especially the conclusion, pp. 226-232. 



PKOPERTY CONCEPTS OF EARLY HEBREWS 79 

Yahweli is no longer the tribal deity. He is the national God of 
Israel who has established his place above all the nations. Every 
votary of his is valuable, sacred. The poor, the needy, and the 
oppressed, these are also his people. Whatever militates against 
any class of Yahweh 's people militates against him. The wealthy 
oppressors have revolted from him. They oppress the poor, Yah- 
weh 's people. And worst of all they have robbed the people of 
their common inheritance, Yahweh 's land. Hence they, the 
wealthy aristocracy, are Yahweh 's enemies, and the poor and 
needy are the ' ' righteous, ' ' his friends. Such are the results of 
this consciousness of kind among the Hebrews and its influence 
upon the concept of property. 

Over against this decrease of emphasis on the divine right to 
native sacrifice we saw the right to the captive and the devoted 
increase during the period of our study. This opposite develop- 
ment would seem to show a deeper origin for the right to the cap- 
tive and cursed than the sacrificial system. The explanation of 
this is not difficult. Sacrifice was the voluntary expression of the 
votary 's recognition of the right of the deity ; a right, moreover, 
which we noticed as greatly modified by the time we have it re- 
corded. Then again this right to the sacrifice involved only the 
god and the worshipper. No question of the relative right be- 
tween man and man entered in this system. In the matter of the 
divine right to the captive, the devoted, and the spoil we enter 
into a different and more primitive situation. Here we have the 
entrance of the idea that man may share in the deity 's rights to 
these things. For let this be remembered, that while the first 
owner was the deity, no deity ever exercised such a function. 
The function arose biologically in the struggle for existence be- 
tween living beings and nature, and then between living beings 
themselves. So when we come to search for the first glimmerings 
of the right to property between man and man we must find it 
where man conceives that it is his privilege to share in Yahweh 's 
right to property. 

The bridge over which the Hebrew was enabled to pass from 
the conception that all things belonged to Yahweh to the concep- 
tion that he could share with his god certain goods is to be found 
in the second great ceremonial institution among the Hebrews, 
the ban or curse. This curse in the name of the god is in reality 



80 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 

the basis of the ahiiost universal practice among primitive peoples 
of the blood-revenge. It is easily seen to be also the primary 
element in the taboo, conveying invincible, utter destruction to its 
victim, either by its own inherent deathly magic or at the bidding 
of an outraged deity. The fate of Uzza who was struck dead be- 
cause of merely touching the ark of God with the good intention 
of saving it from falling is a case in point.^' The ark was holy, 
that is, taboo. To break this meant instant death. The two 
sons of Aaron struck dead for an unintentional break of a simliar 
taboo is another instance."* And at the giving of the law the 
express command given is 'Svhosoever toucheth the mount shall 
surely be put to death. ' ' ^^ Other striking instances are found 
throughout the period, but these are sufficient to show the nature 
of this primary element in the taboo, the deadly electricity, as it 
were, of intrinsic magical holiness. 

It is to be noted, however, that these cases show immediate su- 
pernatural interference. The curse as observed in operation 
during the early period of the invasion is exercised by man in 
the name of Yahweh, that is, by human instrumentality. Two 
elements enter into this. It is not only pronounced by man, but 
it is also carried out by man. Here is precisely the point where 
man began to share the divine right. He who could pronounce 
the ban in the name of Yahweh shared the divine right in so far 
as he could justify his action to the community. Hence we find 
it used by the judges, prophets, and kings against their enemies. 
It is difficult for us to grasp its enormous importance ; the right, 
however, was never questioned. No sooner was it placed than its 
efficacy w^as proved. It brought about concerted action, as no 
other knoMm custom was able to do, even to the extermination of 
an entire tribe of Israel at a most tremendous sacrifice.*" If 
placed upon an individual or a nation, a native, or a captive, liv- 
ing beingsi or inanimate objects, its effect was the same, utter de- 
struction in so far as it lay in the power of the people to accom- 
plish such a result. No right could possibly be more absolute 
than this one. We know of no other method by which a thing 
or a person could be more effectively claimed as the absolute and 

37 2 Sam. 6:6-7. 

38 Lev. 10:2. 

39 Ex. 19:12. 
40Judg. 20:1 ff. 



PROPERTY CONCEPTS OF EARLY HEBREWS 81 

exclusive possession of Yahweh than this ban or sacred taboo. 
In so far, therefore, as man could assert it over against his fel- 
lows, this right rather than brute force, protected his possessions. 
This arose for the simple reason that the universal sanction neces- 
sarily outweighs individual interest, as is shown in the case of 
the defeat of King Saul in the face of the attack of the prophet 
Samuel in the name of Yahweh.*^ 

We have an important development to notice in this herem, or 
ban. While in the early period it means only destruction, in a 
later period it means a separation for actual service of the sanc- 
tuary. As such, this Hebrew word is also translated ''conse- 
crate " or " devote. ' ' ■*- Thus the original deadly influence of 
the inherent magical holiness of things has, under the influence 
of an intensified consciousness of kind, passed into a conception 
of divine right of control for the purpose of active service. The 
right is as binding and as absolute as ever, but it does not always 
involve utter destruction but rather life-long service to the deity. 
This explains the difficulty in the case of Jephthah's daughter. 
Whether she was actually sacrified as a burnt-offering *^ or not 
is immaterial; she was devoted to Yahweh whether in death on 
the altar or in sacred service, and this conception made her taboo 
to men.** Thus, this custom explains the "vows" as being noth- 
ing else than the modification of the original divine right of 
taboo. 

We have now traced the divine right as far back as we can, 
and, in order to come to the purely ''economic" phase of our sub- 
ject, we must direct our attention to the connection of taboo with 
the fact of actual possession. 

5. The function of otvnership in early society leavened hy the 
mental concept of a- divine right thereby creating the concept 
of personal property including the private ownership of per- 
sons and things. 

Three theories of the function of ownei'ship were mentioned, 
seizure, use, and production. Which of these is the primary? 
The sacred custom of the ban renders the answer. It was the 
captive taken in war. The right of Yahweh to the cap- 

41 1 Sam. 15:23. 

42 Josh. 6:18; Mio. 4:13. 

43 Judg. 11:31. 
44Ju<ig. 11:39. 



82 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 

tive actually continued and even increased during our period. 
It is upon this practice of capture by force or ''adverse posses- 
sion ' ' ^^ that the divine right first sets its seal. The wars of 
Israel M'ere all holy wars. The captives were the possession of 
Yahweh, for they were under his curse or taboo. There is noth- 
ing in our study which is more conclusive and well attested than 
this. It is the subject-matter of the entire historical part of the 
early records. The total absence of any effort upon the basis of 
this divine right to soften the light thrown upon the atrocious 
practices of the Hebrews is eloquent. So deeply ingrained is 
this original divine right to the hapless captives of war that 
their destruction is the criterion of faithfulness applied by Yah- 
weh to his people ; **' and so powerful is it that when King Saul 
fails in its enforcement the old prophet himself wields the weapon 
of destruction in defense of the divine right. "^^ 

Acquisition by capture or adverse possession therefore, is the 
biological fact and the economic function, into which the mental 
content of a sacred sanction of a divine right breathed the spirit 
of life, and henceforth the more or less unconscious function be- 
came a living institution of property. Its expression was the 
taboo. The early codes testify to this condition for without 
their theocratic power they would mean less than nothing, be- 
cause the divine will is their only basis and the divine power 
their only support. That this was in reality only the expression 
of the consciousness of kind, of concerted will, volition, and ac- 
tion in terms of religion, we know but this knowledge M^as not 
in the possession of society three thousand years ago.*^ Man 
was the interested actor, and, though he speculated as little 
about his ideas concerning the deity as he did about the fact that 
he had any ideas at all, the notions were there to stay and to 
leaven further the economic functions of man into rational in- 



45 See Blackstone, Book 2, Ch. 1. 

46 1 Sam. 15:19 ff. 

47 Ihid., 15:33. 

48 This view does not invalidate the "law which may be regarded as practically 
universal, that the relisioiis conceptions of a people are expressed in forms which are 
modelled, in large degree, on those political and social institutions which the econom- 
ical conditions of their situation have produced" (Barton, Semitic orir/ins, p. 82), 
but it exposes the half-truth of the mechanical economic interpretation of society by 
emphasizing the essence of mental content withoiit which it is an absu^rdity to talk of 
an "institution" in human society. According to biology, animal society has been in 
the field of experimenting with "the economic condition of their situation" ages before 
man. Where are their religious conceptions? 



PROPERTY CONCEPTS OF EARLY HEBREWS 83 

stitutions. The divine property-right to the captive, the de- 
voted, and the spoil, became exercised by human agency in com- 
munion with the deity, and so became the basis of man's property- 
right. 

It remains only to trace the influence of the sacred taboo on 
economic concepts by showing its relation to particular notions of 
property. In this development we have to take into account not 
only the owner but the objects owned. The prevalent opinion is 
that personal property, such as weapons, ornaments, and imple- 
ments, were the first objects of property. This is not necessarily 
the case.*'^ As will be shown later, so far as Hebrew history is 
concerned, the contrary is true, that personal property grew out 
of property in human beings. Here the task is to show how 
property in persons, that is, slavery, grew out of the taboo. 

As we have seen, the earliest conception of the "curse" re- 
vealed in our Hebrew sources was that all the enemy, young 
and old, were to be slain, as "devoted," or sacred to the deity, 
and therefore were taboo to men. With the growing Hebrew 
consciousness of one-ness with his tribal God, Yahweh, there 
developed as a result of the conflict with their enemies, the 
Canaanites, and later with their stronger and more dangerous en- 
emies, the SjTians and the Assyrians, the feeling that they were 
representatives of Yahweh and could therefore themselves use 
some of these devoted pei*sons. This feeling had a basis in their 
communion with Yahweh in partaking of part of the sacrifices, a 
Semitic practice which antedated Hebrew history by a long 
period. This feeling of sharing the devoted with Yahweh was 
helped along both by the practices of primitive magic and by 
some of the most fundamental instincts of man, some of them 
economic and others biological. 

Primitive magic had led the victor to kill the enemy in order 
that his deity and ultimately himself as the representative of his 
god might obtain the valor of the slain enemy. But to the 
primitive consciousness the living enemy appeared to be an even 
more valuable trophj^ than the dead enemy. In the predatory 
life of the primitive horde the captive served to solve the food 

49 See Veblen, "The beginnings of ownership," American Jourkial of Sociology, 
Vol. 4, pp. 352-365. "It is diiBcult to see how an institution of ownership could 
have arisen in the early days of predatory life through the seizure of goods, but the 
case is different with the seizure of persons." P. 361. 



84 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 

problem. The male captive, however, was dangerous and there- 
fore seldom spared. It was different with the female. If spared, 
at least temporarily she could supply another almost equally 
necessiary demand in the captor, the satisfaction of the sex- im- 
pulse, and this without losing her food-providing capacity. She 
catered to the desire deeply rooted in human nature for novelty 
in sexual relations.'"' Moreover, if spared long, she could add 
future warriors to the horde. She was more submissive, less dan- 
gerous, eminently useful, and from all these considerations a 
much more valuable trophy than the slain enemy. Hence we 
conclude that the first object of property was woman taken in 
war.^^ 

While in the earliest period all were slain for the reasons just 
noted, it soon came to be a practice to spare some of the "spoil." 
It is significant that it was not women in general but maidens 
who had "not known man by lying with him"^- that were 
spared. Of a piece with, this is the fact that the sacred harlots 
attached to the temples are never married women. Here, then, 
are the elements of the basis of property in persons: (1) the 
conception that all captives are sacred to the god of the con- 
querors; (2) the strengthening of the consciousness of kind be- 
tween the deity and the votary; and (3) the recognition of the 
opportunity thus afforded to gratify impulse. 

But why, it may be asked, was it the virgin rather than the 
matron in Hebrew history who was spared ? Because of the in- 
fluence of the taboo adapted to the sex relations. What was 
sacred to the deity was taboo to man. The mystery of repro- 
duction gathered about it the mysterious awe of primitive peo- 
ples, and the sexual relation had in it something of the divine. 
It was easy for primitive man to adapt his conception of the 
divine right in certain men and things to the sex relations, es- 
pecially when male jealousy developed by the patriarchal family 
inclined him strongly in that direction. What was sacred to one 
group of men was tabooed to another, and finally what was sacred 
to one man was tabooed to every other, except upon the exchange 
of a purchase price. Hence arose private property not merely 
in woman captives but in virgins. 

50 See Westermark, Oripin and development of the tnoral ideas, p. 371. 

51 The facts noted in Ch. 3 prove this conclusion. 

52 "But all of the woman-children, that have not known man by lying with him, 
keep alive for yourselves." Num. 31:18. 



PROPEETY CONCEPTS OF EARLY HEBREWS 85 

This right iiiaiiitained. itself unquestioned throughout the 
period, so that it is first in the P code that we find it implied that 
she who had been humbled could not be sold. Yet upon this prac- 
tice we are forced to notice the effect of the taboo before we can 
talk of woman as the actual property of man. For where this is 
not present and where no marriage rite makes the captive woman 
taboo to some men in favor of others we have complete promis- 
cuity which is the ' ' sheer negation of marriage ' ' ^^ and of owner- 
ship as well. 

With this sacred marriage taboo we have the ownership com- 
plete. For this taboo was placed only upon woman — ■ man was, 
as we well know, absolutely free from any restriction on its ac- 
count — branding her, figuratively speaking, as the property of 
one or more men to the exclusion of others. Such taboo placed 
upon the captive woman marks the first recognized property- 
right between man and man. She was more than trophy of the 
dead enemy; she was a distinct personality by herself, which 
could not by any magic be incorporated with the captor's per- 
sonality, except by an abstract right of the taboo placed upon 
her which the community respected. 

This taboo placed upon woman has its origin in the divine right 
to the captives. Its origin is prehistoric, yet we possess suffi- 
ciently clear survivals to prove the case. Even so late as in the 
P code the conception of Yahweh's right to the female captives 
is definite and concise. Out of thirty-two thousand virgin cap- 
tives, ' ' Yah well 's tribute was thirty and two persons. ' ' ^* Fur- 
ther we have the sacred prostitutes, kedeshah, literally, "conse- 
crated" or "holy." This consecration or holiness is only an 
illustration of the consecration spoken of above for service at 
the sanctuary.^^ The word used to denote such a woman is the 
same word that expresses holiness, but what was the exact rela- 
tion obtaining between the deity and such a woman we are unable 
to determine. Several instances of these survivals occur,^" but 
bevond these we have the well-attested conviction of the direct 



53 "Where the marital relation becomes very loose we approach promiscuity, or the 
sheer negation of marriage, as between all who are not separated from each other by 
any taboo. If such taboo also fail we get complete promiscuity." Hobhouse, Morals 
in evolution. Vol. 1, p. 14. 

54 Num. 31:40. 

55 "Semitic temples were thronged with sacred prostitutes." Smith, Religion of 
the Semites, p. 455. 

56 Gen. 38:21-22; 1 Sam. 2:22; Num. 25:1-3; Hos. 4:14. 



86 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 

dependence of pregnancy upon the divine influence, and finally 
the divine right to the first-bom, all of these things lending tre- 
mendous weight to the explicit reference to the sexual inter- 
course between the ' ' sons of God and the daughters of men. ' ' ^'^ 
In general it is noteworthy that in our sources we have no con- 
demnation of sexual immorality which does not violate a sacred 
taboo. It need scarcely be pointed out that the whole regulation 
of "forbidden degrees" of relation for intermarrying and the 
elaborate system of "cleanness and uncleanness" in the marital 
relation are distinct taboos, deriving their power from the di- 
vine will and the dread of divine punishjment. Without these 
they would be meaningless. 

Property-right in woman bj'^ means of the sacred taboo took 
place early, in the prehistoric society, for we know of no society 
where absolute promiscuity without any sexual taboo has at all 
existed. But so long as the nomadic life continued there were 
strict limitations even to this kind of property. It required 
the functional soil of economic production to give the impetus to 
the concept. When captive woman could be put to productive 
work, the beginnings of actual slavery sprang up. Then men 
and women alike became a valuable asset and were spared for 
the work that they could perform. We witness this in the vic- 
torious conquest of Palestine by the Hebrews. There was a 
change from the pastoral to the agricultural mode of life. This 
made profitable the system of slavery not only of women for pro- 
creative purposes, but of both sexes alike for agricultural work. 
Such is the real import of the C code, the first and chief part of 
which is the regulation of this property-right in Hebrew slaves. 

Another element, however, is inevitable in a society of agri- 
cultural slavery. This is the armed power strong enough to 
quell uprisings. While we do not read of a revolt of Hebrew 
slaves, we have rather ample evidence of the revolts of the en- 
slaved Canaanites. Militarism marked the development of the 
property-right in human beings. The popular leader at first 
was chosen directly by the deity, and this power gave him pres- 
tige. Warriors were at first the entire fighting strength of the 
tribe, but with the rise of serfdom society was divided in distinct 
classes and the cleavage of society began. The old patriarchal 
household with its small distinction between wife and concubine, 

57 Gten. 6:2. 



PROPERTY CONCEPTS OF EARLY HEBREWS 87 

child and slave, and its manorial mode of life which it was the 
aim of the armed power to protect and perpetuate soon felt the 
influence of the power it had created for its protection. The 
ownership of man on a large scale, at first practised on the basis 
of the divine sanction, gradually developed tendencies of antag- 
onism to the patriarchal mode of life and to theocratic ideas. 
The kingship completed the breach. Military power by means 
of the ownership of men became a menace to the theocratic in- 
stitutions. The institution of the kingdom meant the rejection 
of Yahweh.^^ A struggle began in which the military power 
only gradually made itself independent. The first kings were 
humbled again and again by the prophets. The institution of 
the right of ownership developed into the right of control by 
means of this property-right. This struggle marks the passing 
of the divine right of property into a human right. One of the 
most momentous changes in economic conditions which accom- 
panied this change, was the rise of cities and of centers of pop- 
ulation. Along with this and the subsequent expansion of in- 
dustrial activity the ownership of men by means of the owner- 
ship of their subsistence entered society, and the idea of control 
by means of industrial slavery was developed. The dazzling 
reign of Solomon, who was capable of fusing the old and the 
new concepts together, marks a turning-point in the development 
of the property-concept in Israel. National glory blinds the nation 
for a moment to the hopeless chasm between the military nobility 
and the enslaved serfs. But under all this outward grandeur the 
population is being robbed by the aristocracy. Reaction comes 
against the boundless property-right assumed by the nobility. 
Commercial activity with the idea of profit finally brings its 
share to the enhancement of the institution of ownership, and 
then capping all, private ownership of Yahweh's land completes 
the institution of property among the Hebrews, and marks the 
climax of the development of the practice of the property-right. 
But this development of the practice does not represent the 
actual development of the concept of property. We must face 
the element of the divine right, the survival of the origin of the 
property-right itself. For it is precisely in the indignant reac- 
tion of the eighth-century prophets against these very practices 

58 1 Sam. 8 :7. 



88 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 

of the private right of property that we find the actual concept 
of property revealed. The extreme function of private property 
lacks the essential element, the divine sanction. We may refuse 
to believe such a view as this, but, if we do we are forced to 
deny the facts. For so fundamental was this menace of unre- 
strained, unsanctioned practice of the private property-right that 
the downfall of the nation stands as a monumental ruin in his- 
tory to testify to the destruction it wrought. 

The ownership of Hebrew slaves recognized in the early code 
was gradually modified so that in the following D code woman 
enjoyed the limit of seven years servitude, as well as the man, 
if sold into bondage as a free woman. With the rise of a power- 
ful nobility the military power prevented the capture of wives^ 
and the price was paid which later developed into the moJiar, 
or dowry. This naturally made a greater distinction between 
the chief wife and the concubines. Yet the growing national 
consciousness recognized the native individual, and to a certain 
extent broke down the property-right in Hebrew slaves. The 
right to the captive foreigner is as absolute as ever, and the 
prophets accord it unqualified divine sanction. But the agree- 
ment of the nobility in the reign of Zedekiah to liberate all the 
Hebrew slaves marks the change which was occurring in the prop- 
erty-concept of the time. Hitherto slaves had been the chief 
objects of ownership. With the development of consciousness 
of kind, however, that form of property had begun to fall into 
disrepute. Now a new social cleavage was beginning to ap- 
pear, caused not by social differences at first but by economic 
changes. The people had become agricultural. Property in 
things had begun to come in as a substitute for human chattels. 
Thence came commercial pursuits and the changed concept of 
property which challenged the attention of those social conser- 
vatives, the prophets. The bulk of the nation was with them. 
The newly rich were the innovators and as such both they and 
their commercial practices call forth the fierce denunciation of 
the prophets. The control of the necessities of life, ownership 
of things as a control of man, has its strict limitations. Com- 
mercial activity for profit is looked upon with disdain as con- 
temptible, and the private ownership of land is summarily con- 
demned by the Hebrew prophets. This was the actual property- 



PROPERTY CONCEPTS OP EARLY HEBREWS 89 

concept, and the divergence between it and the practices is clear- 
ly seen to involve the original element of the right of ownership, 
divine right. This was the basis for the views of the prophets. 

After the property-right was established in captives we can 
easily understand its extension tO' things. But, as noted above, 
it is undoubtedly false to believe the property-right in things 
prior to the right in persons.^^ Private property in the primitive 
horde is almost unthinkable, since it presumes a highly developed 
and clearly defined idea of the individual, and, more than this, 
an explicit right as operating between these individuals. In the 
absence of this it would involve speedy and inevitable extinction, 
since the horde, torn by the dissension which always follows 
private propertj^ would prove a house divided against itself. 
When we know" that association itself and the unity of concerted 
action is a result of the struggle for existence, this notion of an 
original property-right in personal belongings falls to the ground 
by its own weight. In the primitive horde the individual was 
merged in the group. The horde was the unit. The notion of 
personality Avas hazy and vague. Hence the view of personal 
belongings as being a part of the personality of the captor or 
user is undoubtedly the true one, when we remember that the 
question is of the concept of property — not its function.^" 

With this explanation we have a clue to the historical fact of 
horde-communism. If the group was the unit so that the indi- 
vidual, to all practical purposes, disappeared in it ; so did also his 
personality and its appendages. For any thing to be "his" the 
individual had to be pitted against the whole, and we know M^hat 
that meant in savage society, instant destruction. Another con- 
sideration of conclusive importance in regard to the priority of 
property in persons or things is that while we have an abund- 
ance of historical evidence for communism in things,®^ we know 

59 "The appropriation and accumulation of consumable goods could scarcely have 
come into viogue as a direct outgrowth of the primitive horde communism, but it 
comes in as an easy and unobtrustive consequence of the ownership of persons." 
Veblen, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 4, p. 365. 

60 "It is a question as to the light in which the savage himself habitually views 
these objects that pertain immediately to his person and are set apart for his habitual 
use." Ibid., p. 354. 

61 "It is commonplace to remark that among the lowest races moist economic goods 
belong to the community as a whole. The individual has only a right of user which 
has not as yet passed into a rerognized right of ownership." Webster, American 
Journal of Sociology, Vol. 15, p. 795. 



90 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 

of no society with absolute communism in women, that is, with 
complete promiscuity and a total absence of all sexual taboos. 

The most valued of all personal possessions, the trophy, may 
have a different meaning from what we usually give it. In a 
state of society in which "life" is a mere annotation, and all 
its connotations or elements are bound up in the nebulous chaos 
of magic and mystery, lines of demarcation between men and 
things are not as clear as they are to-day. Might not the death- 
dealing weapon in the hand of the hero appear to the superstiti- 
ous mind of the savage as a part of the hero himself ? And may 
not this view obtain in regard to other things of daily use as well ? 
In all probability things interred with the dead were interred 
with him because they w^ere, to the minds of the survivors, an 
integral part of the dead man himself rather than his possession.*'- 
This would explain the trophy as a share obtained by the votary 
in the divine property-right. The weapon, as well as the teeth 
or the scalp, would be part of the enemy himself, and as a token 
of prowess or, more probably, of divine favor the warrior would 
possess the person rather than his belongings. This fellow-being 
himself would be delivered to the owner by magical power and 
be possessed by the divine right of the sacred taboo. In this way 
the "zone of influence of the individual's personality," the 
"quasi personal fringe" and the "penumbra of a person's in- 
dividuality"^^ may be explained, and the hero would not only 
possess the others, but be considered to have increased his own 
personality by the powers of the other persons whom he had 
killed. This would be an "extension of personality," the rea- 
sonableness of which might be much more clear to the savage 
than the conception of corporate ownership is to many minds 
to-day. If this was the belief of primitive man, we have an ex- 
planation of the rise of personal property in weapons, ornaments, 
etc., in the fact that they had been connected with a person who 
was "devoted" and therefore belonged to his deity. That it 
was persons rather than things which constituted thet first objects 
of the proprietary right we are fairly sure. 

62 "Weapons, tools, articles of ornament and clothing, are commonly regarded by 
early man as an integral part of the owner's personality; they are HIM almost as 
much as his bodily members." Webster, AmeT^ican Jovrnal of Sociology, Vol. 15, 
p. 799. 

63 Veblen, "The Beginnings of Ownership," American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 
4, p. 360. 



PROPERTY CONCEPTS OF EARLY HEBREWS 91 

We conclude that the property right in persons is the basis of 
the later property-right in things. That this right, like the own- 
ership of persons, should be based upon the divine right of the 
sacred taboo may appear absurd ; yet such is the testimony of 
facts. In the communism of the early group everything belonged 
to the group. As soon as the magic had advanced sufficiently to 
invest things with a supernatural mysterious power, these things 
became taboo. This is in fact the taboo as we know it, though 
we have failed to see its far-reaching importance. Then, when 
animism had proceeded far enough to render this magic the ex- 
expression of a divine will, we have the holy things, which are 
tabooed to the people and set off from the common things by 
means of this universally respected divine right. In this early 
communism, therefore, we find the condition that "what is not 
taboo is common and in this antithesis lies the germ of the con- 
ception of property as applied to many persons and things. Thus 
taboo became in many cases merely an assertion of proprietary 
rights. . . Isolation was the first object of taboo and this 
was the first stage of ownership. ' ' *** That this taboo in its last 
analysis invoices the divine right is the best attested fact of our 
entire study of the Hebrew property-concept from Yahweh's 
right to the first-born among men and animals, his right to the 
captives and the spoil, through the entire list of objects, to its in- 
fluence upon the view of wealth. This is, as we have seen, their 
only sanction and their compelling power. The curse derives its 
meaning from this fact. The case of Achan's breaking of this 
taboo illustrates the divine property-right to things,^^ and the 
curse uttered by Micali's mother shows this right exercised by 
man.*"' This condition, so striking in the social life of the He- 
brews, is so because of the undeveloped state in which we find 
the concept among them. But it is seen to obtain everywhere, 
when investigated. "Throughout the lower culture we have 
abundant evidence that the private property of the living is fre- 
quently protected by the imposition of taboos."®^ Even the 
advocates of the old theories of a functional origin of the prop- 
erty concept realize this predominating influence of the taboo. 

64 International Encyclopedia, s. v. "Taboo." 
65, Tosh. 7:1 ff. 

66 .Tudsr. 17:1 ff. 

67 Webster, "The influence of superstition on the evohition of the property ri^ht." 
American Jovrktal of Sociology, Vol. 15, p. 794. 



92 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 

* ' Among many rude peoples the statement that the property de- 
pends upon the user must be qualified by the exception that it 
may also be secured by taboo. Thus the legal conception of user 
may be reinforced by the magical idea of taboo as a basis of 
property. ' ' ^^ Westermark, who traces the development of the 
property-idea by means of the legal conception of theft, fills ten 
pages with illustrations of this divine property-right as it has 
been discovered among the different primitive peoples.*'^ 

In early group life personal property played but a. small part. 
Among the Hebrews it was chiefly ' ' flocks and herds, silver and 
gold." "Men-servants and the maid-servants'' were by far the 
most important. Yet with the ownership in persons established, 
the settlement in a fertile country with comparatively unlimited 
capacity for the productivity of slave labor, property in things 
soon acquired prominence. Moreover the military power pro- 
tecting the right in persons also made personal property more 
safe. One of the best testimonies to the fact that the property- 
right in things became so prominent as to shov/ its power in the 
control of men, we have in the complaint of the prophets of the 
eighth century concerning the corruption of the leaders. "The 
hiCads [of Zion] judge for reward, and the priests thereof teach 
for hire, and the prophets thereof divine for money." ^" With 
the rise of cities and industrial activity commercialism marks the 
culmination of the property-right in things by the well-attested 
idea of profit condemned by the prophet as plain stealing. Hence 
this function of the property-right was far from a right which 
had gained the popular sanction and cannot, therefore, be said 
to be an established conception of the property-right. The 
prophetic view of wealth proves this contention. 

6. Ownership in land, or real property, is the last item to come 
into the hands of the individual. 

Not a word of regulation as to the right of man against man 
is spoken in the early C code. Yet in the still earlier Covenant 
code we have the divine right to the land intimated. Conse- 
quently, any objection to the theory set forth in these pages that 
the divine right was a derivative from individual right falls to 

68 Hobhouse, Morals in evolution, p. 332. 

69 The origin and development of the moral ideas, Vol. 2, pp. 59-69. 
70Mic. 3:11. 



PROPERTY CONCEPTS OF EARLY HEBREWS 93 

pieces. The fact is that the land of Canaan was conceived to be 
Yahweh's land, just as the land of Moab was conceded to Che- 
mosh ^^ not only by the Moabites but by the Hebrews as well.^- 
Another fact is that this divine right maintained itself intact 
throughtout our period with this modification that it was viewed 
as a divine control in favor of the common people. Private 
ownership of land was a robbery of Yahweh's land held in fief 
by the people.^^ Hence the popular belief of the fall of a dynas- 
ty as result of a violation of the family inheritance/* and the 
actual destruction of the nation by this unsanctioned practice 
of the Hebrew latifundia, the large landed estates privately 
owned. 

That this property-right in land should have its origin in the 
sacred taboo does not surprise us, since we find that in this 
period the very practice of private property in land is unable 
to gain the necessary sanction, and common family ownership 
still obtains. The conception of the earliest home of man in the 
garden of Eden is a fact which can only be explained by the 
principle of divine ownership. An abundance of evidence meets 
us in our sources that places where theophanies occurred are 
considered as the dwelling places of the deity and therefore they 
are holy, or taboo.^^ At these places altars were erected, which 
we know were taboo in the very highest degree. Nothing could 
therefore be more logical than the idea that the land belonged 
directly to the deity. Other natural causes tended to confirm 
this view. The mysterious force of fertility seemed to prove 
it.'^^ So also droughts, storms, and all agents of devastations 
were conceived as plagues sent by the owner of the land upon 
its inhabitants. Thus it came about that the first owner of land 
was not the man who was able to see the advantage of owning it 
and therefore persuaded his fellow men that the land he had 
fenced in was his, as Rousseau would have it, but the first owner 

71 See inscription on Mesha Stone. Hastings, Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, p. 404. 

72 Judg:. 11:23-24. 

73 Cp. McCurdy, History, prophf^y, and the Momtment.s, Vol. 2, p. 201. "He as 
the head of the family was the tenant of the' Owner of the soil." 

74 1 Ki. 21:3. 

75 Gen. 22:2, 14; 12:7; 28:16-17; 31:48 ff. ; 32:30; 35:7. See further Smith, 
Reliffion of the Semites, on the subject of "Holy Places." 

7'6 Cp. Smith, Prhphets of Israel, who holds that even as late as in Hosea's time 
the conception of Yahweh as the Baali, "my lord," "owner" was a conception of the 
deity as a principle of physical fertility." Pp. 170-174. 



94 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 

of a piece of land was the priest representing the people at the 
altar of the deity. As he held this spot by the taboo which by 
common consent forbade popular use, so the clan or tribe grad- 
ually came to regard their habitat as especially sacred to their 
community, and the deity was expected to interfere in their 
behalf in case of danger to its own possession and the people's 
inheritance. This was as far as the proprietary right in land 
could advance in the pastoral stage, when communism perforce 
must rule. Only with increasing population in an environment 
of pastoral and agricultural activity combined could modification 
of the communistic occupation pass over into communal property 
with definite limits. Increasing agriculture caused an increased 
value of the laud, and this necessitated more definite division of 
the groups to which a certain section belonged, and more precis 
boundaries. In Israel we know that at first the land was the 
common possession as a future home for all the tribes. Later 
there was a division according to the tribes individually, and 
then finally came the family inheritance which at the close of 
our period was the divinely sanctioned mode of ownership which 
was broken down by the powerful but unsanctioned and there- 
fore wicked practice of private ownership. 

7. The concept of theft. 

Of the special concepts the rise and development of the notion 
of theft is the most important. This is but the negative side of 
the property-concept. It proves conclusively the difference be- 
tween the function of property and the universal sanction or the 
proprietary right. The notion of theft in other words takes the 
function as it exists, but while it sanctions one practice it con- 
demns another. The contention of this interpretation is that this 
sanction and not the practice constitutes the concept of property. 
Seizure, use, exchange and production are nothing more or less 
than the function, and could not per se create the notion of 
right, the negation of which is theft. Imitation and suggestion 
of the individual consciousness is inadequate to explain the facts 
of a generally accepted right. Consciousness of kind is abso- 
lutely essential. Imitation and suggestion influence action and 
function, but are as incapable of creating mental content in hu- 
man society as they are in the society of animals. 



PROPERTY CONCEPTS OF EARLY HEBREWS 95 

This notion of theft goes further. In early society the only 
crimes recognized were the breaking of sacred customs. These 
customs were sacred because of man's belief in the supernatural. 
They were protected by universal sanction basied upon the belief 
in a divine will. This was expressed by means of the taboo. 
The first act of theft therefore could only occur where a taboo 
was broken. And it could be theft only because the right vio- 
lated was a sacred, that isi, supernatural or divine right. It 
would be punished only in so far as the members of the group 
acted in unison in the belief that they were executing the divine 
will. The divine right plays the same part in the origin of the 
concept of property as the strong arm does in the origin of the 
function. Hence we can understand how Dr. Smith could labor 
so hard to rule out all ideas of property from the system of 
taboo and yet make this statement, which expresses the facts in a 
nutshell: "In the oldest types of societies impious acts or 
breaches of taboo are the only offences treated as crimes; e. g. 
there is no such crime as theft, but a man can save his property 
by placing it under taboo ,when it becomes an act of impiety 
to touch it."" 

This explains how the same act is in one case a crime and in 
another case a merit. We noted this in the case of spoil. To 
spoil the enemies was a meritorious act, and the only case of 
stealing which was recognized as such, was tbe appropriation of 
the tabooed thing and later the things usied by a kinsman to 
which the community had a common right. The individual 
taboo was first placed on the captive woman, and thus the comer- 
stone of the home and marital fidelity sustains a very close rela- 
tion to the institution of property.'^^ From this taboo in slavery 
of women arose our individual property in human beings. This 
is the stage of the C code where we find that to steal a man meant 
death,''^ and to break the taboo protecting a father's property 
right in the daughter meant pa.ying the price for her.^° Along- 
side with property in human beings the taboo on things came 
into vogue as soon as their value became sufficiently important 

77 See p. 77 footnote. 

78 Cp. Sutherland, Origin and growth of the moral instincts, Ch. 9, "The Ideal of 
Chastity," pp. 190-232. See also Gen. 20:3 ff. ; 26:10. 

79 Ex. 21:16. 

80 Ex. 22:16-17. 



96 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 

in social life and stealing of things upon wliich a neighbor, that 
is, a kinsman, ha^ placed his taboo, is forbidden. Yet while this 
development takes place, the right to take spoil remains and is 
as justifiable in the estimation of the prophets as it was by the 
early Judges. It is only when the nobility begins to violate the 
ancient divine right to Yahweh's land and to eject Yahweh's 
people from it that the crime of spoil, or robbery, is recognized 
because it is perpetrated against Israel, and not against the 
"cursed" nations. 

The notion of inheritance is, as we noticed, closely connected 
with the paternal blessing in the name of Yahweh. The divine 
right or sanction was eagerly sought, as the intrigues of nearly 
every one of the wives of the patriarch's in favor of the inheri- 
tance of the favorite son, abundantly proves.^^ In this paternal 
blessing we probably see one of the clearest cases of the union of 
the divine and the human property-right. The father was the 
owner of his household in the name of Yahweh, who was the 
real axid actual owner.^^ For only thus could the religious form- 
ula of the blessing carry with it any meaning. Under the de- 
veloping ideas of property as new situations arose through the 
complexity of social life the human right gained the ascendancy 
and the divine right had to be emphasized against the encroach- 
ment made by the aristocracy under military and regal power. 

Such origin and development must lie at the basis of the 
change of view in the matter of material possessions which is 
seen in our sources. The function of property in human society 
springs from the elements of suggestion and imitation on the 
basis of the struggle for existence, but the concept of the right to 
own and possess springs from man's belief in magic and the 
supernatural, which has its basis in the consciousness of kind. 
This was what made the taboo sacred and unquestionably accept- 
ed and what constituted its binding force. The right of the deity 
could not be violated. Then the individual who could impose 
these taboos by devoting or cursing things in the name of the 
deity, or could make a vow, perforce must share in this right. 
Therefore great possessions and divine favor went hand in hand. 

But this process had a limit. The right was used to the dotri- 

81 Gen. 31:10; 27:2 ff. ; 1 Ki. 1:15 ff. 

82 Cp. Smith, The prophets of Israel, pp. 170-174. 



PROPERTY CONCEPTS OF EARLY HEBREWS 97 

ment of the worshippers so far that what had been a means of 
strength in the struggle for survival became a menace. The con- 
sciousness of kind has developed and the divine will is seen to 
have changed. The sanction which gave the practice its life as 
an institution was withdrawn. The negative side of the right of 
property developed. Theft was punished as an act of impiety 
when practiced between kinsmen. Finally the wholesale plund- 
ering of the masses of a nation by a certain class is seen as a 
spoiling of Yahweh's people. This class constitutes the enemies 
of Yahweh, and their wealth is a. token of this hostility. 

Thus a synthesis of the facts found in the analysis of the actual 
property concepts of the early Hebrews, shows the essential dif- 
ference between the function of ownerliip and the idea of prop- 
erty. It establishes the fact that the first notions of the right 
of property were inseparably bound up with primitive magic and 
superstition in animistic traditions, so that the first "owner,'' 
whose right could command universal recognition and absolute 
respect was the deity of the tribe. The historical fact by means 
of which this right was expressed and its power exerted was the 
taboo. The basis for this development can be explained only by 
means of the ' ' elementary, generic soeial fact, ' ' ^' the ' ' conscious- 
ness of kind, " or " formal likemindedness, ' ' since an actual func- 
tion of a divine ownership never could have been exercised and 
could only exist in the conscious likemindedness of the group. 

In a society where men and gods were thought to be akin and 
to stand in close relation to one another with the divine right 
usually exercised by human agency, this right gi'adually came 
to be shared by man, chiefly by means of the act of ' ' devoting, ' ' 
or tabooing to his deity the object over which control was desired. 
This was first directed against enemies for the purpose of de- 
struction ; later an individual taboo was placed upon the female 
captive, who, being spared for the purpose of satisfaction and 
service to the captor, became the first object of the human 
right of property through the saered taboo. 

Personal belongings M^ere thought to be an integral part of the 
owTier's personality, and became objects of the property-right 
for the first time when the proprietary riglit in persons was 
fully developed, and the control of man by means of the own- 

83 Giddinars. PrHnciples of Sociology, p. 10, Preface. 



98 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 

ership of their subsistence came to be understood. This gave 
rise to commercial activity, which resulted in the idea of profit 
and the practice of private ownership of land, which, conflicting 
with the religious origin of the concept of property is opposed 
by the same social factor, "the consciousness of kind." 



